Allied 1v1 Dominace

You realize that the majority of players, so non-top 20 by your definition, face other problems?

Now, should relic make the game more enjoyable for 20 guys or several thousands...?

So literally every big successful Pvp game is doing it wrong by balancing for the best of Best players? Try to fill in an application so you can tell them your great idea, they will be amazed by your "20 or 1000s" argument

I like how people think Im totally off base when I'm literally better at this game than 99% of the people here. LoL gg internet.

You believe 20-30 people sample is relevant for balance evaluation for RTS game.

If you aren't "totally off base" here, then you're just completely nuts.

The soviets are OP? Are you drunk?

not neccessarily drunk it can be general mental state.

it's not allied dominance, it's wehr being weak.

OKW early game is just as powerful as either USF or the SOV, with a considerably more powerful late game.

You realize that the majority of players, so non-top 20 by your definition, face other problems?

Now, should relic make the game more enjoyable for 20 guys or several thousands...?

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

You believe 20-30 people sample is relevant for balance evaluation for RTS game.

If you aren't "totally off base" here, then you're just completely nuts.

Quite simply: you're an idiot spewing swill. By what grounds am I wrong? Based on your experience? How does that experience trump mine?

I suppose next you'll say that my efforts and participation in their games and its tournaments disqualify me from making comments on balance (comments that are largely accurate, I'll add). I suppose someone with over 7k posts will usually speak on impulse rather than rational thought.

Quite simply: you're an idiot spewing swill. By what grounds am I wrong? Based on your experience? How does that experience trump mine?

Hes a game Designer at some fancy game!

Quite simply: you're an idiot spewing swill. By what grounds am I wrong? Based on your experience? How does that experience trump mine?

By the ground of gardening sample size you want to consider for balancing.

The very basics of statistic and math.

You want to use sample size that is considered statistical error as leading sample.

If coh2 had SC2 population then sure, balance around the 1%, that still is couple of hundreds of top players.

But given the playerbase of coh2, what you want is not only impossible, its pure insanity.

You can listen to FEEDBACK from that kind of "population", but you will NOT get ANY reasonable statistical data out of it, because its way below any statistics, therefore whatever you'd want to measure based on that will be, simply-random, not showing any trend, but completely random results based on who plays how long and nothing else.

The soviets are OP? Are you drunk?

OKW has no solid answer to maxims, guards, and t70. Ostheer it is an uphill battle. However, OKW also dominates USF and UKF because of their early game and late game heavy armor. Soviets have highest win rate of allied faction (top 150) but OKW has higher win rate. This means that if everyone stopped roughing it as UKF and (in USF vs OKW) Americans, and just played Soviet, allied win rates would be astronomically higher because OKW match ups would be easy wins and Ost match ups would be slightly in allied favor.

We have a scenario where different factions curbstomp each other, except soviet and Ost. vindicairex is right on most accounts, but skewed data and tourney army choices is due to balance being subjective, depending on specific matchup.

If you would actually read my posts, you would see I'm talking about small balance issues that would otherwise be undetectable in any other game and only really present themselves in high-level play. As such, you can have a sample size of a billion games and players and it wouldn't mean a thing if none of them were good.
- As it so happens, I tend to play this game a lot. I also spectate a lot of high level games and streams. And of the majority of games I've seen, my position seems to be true. You need only look back at past tournaments to see how this general trend of allied early game dominance rings true. Hell, just look at the current ESL matches and see for yourself how often allies win.

Your last sentence implies you want to balance the game for the nubs, not the pros, which I already explained my thoughts on above why such an approach is self-defeating and short-sighted.

since the last time you made this argument, don't you think okw early game has been buffed?

You mean that allied dominance that doesn't even exist.


Also you misspelled the title.

Gosh, I thought Vindi was quite a good player, but he turned out to be quite an arrogant guy :/

You mean that allied dominance that doesn't even exist.


Also you misspelled the title.

if you read through the thread you would know hes referring to the highest skill matchups, not just the average on ladder.

Gosh, I thought Vindi was quite a good player, but he turned out to be quite an arrogant guy :/

Why can't an individual be both?

The game changes, but the rants always stay the same.

Funny how people are clamoring for a balance that revolves around the top 20 players in a game that will never see a highly competitive professional environment.

The game is going to be balanced for the entire playerbase, or at least that's the goal. If you think otherwise you're playing the wrong game. An RTS that revolves around random chances is never going to compete with games like Starcraft on a competitive level.

Yeah, top level players are, on a whole, going to have better views at balance but excluding anyone but the top fraction of a percent from the conversation is ridiculous.

Poor Vindi...

Trying to make a legitimate post and it is already derailed by gibbering, drooling trolls...

#ReasonsIStoppedPostingOnTheseForums

On a serious note I think the balance now is a lot better than it has been in 1v1s, perhaps ever.

Except maybe UKF and the Kubel/CalliOP.

Still a shame to see a good thread going nowhere though.

Gosh, I thought Vindi was quite a good player, but he turned out to be quite an arrogant guy :/

I could say the exact thing towards the people who think I'm wrong. They gave little input besides "troll post" or some remark about x/y easily proves you wrong without further explanation of that reasoning. And I'm the arrogant one?

I feel like a martial arts master arguing with a street hoodlum about the best way in how to fight. My evidence is inherent: I participate in the highest level of play in this game. That's not arrogance, that's a fact.

Hell, the only real counter arguments I've received were stats showing a general balanced state of the game (which it mostly is), but which I already pointed out are not representative of high level play.

I will concede that relic has been doing a good job balancing this game, so this trend that I pointed out has not been as exacerbated as it has been in the recent past. The stats I've been bombarded with show exactly that the game is largely balanced. I'm talking about specific match ups and specific map design.

Imagine you were an outside observer of a video game and never played it before: who would you trust on balance game-play issues? The dime-a-dozen casual players or the few experts?


This thread is exactly why I don't post on this damnable forum: because some scrub who thinks he knows more about this game than the experts will never relent in their opinions, regardless of any argument or position presented to them.

Well, you do not have to post in this community if you so strongly believe with this kind of arrogant and overly aggressive tone that we are not worth it.

Well, you do not have to post in this community if you so strongly believe with this kind of arrogant and overly aggressive tone that we are not worth it.

I'm on a crusade for today. Do you care to offer your opinion why I'm wrong?



If I know one thing, people don't listen to benign voices of reason (which this thread definitely could've been), but vociferous arguments rammed down their throats that challenge their beliefs.

Let's not forget that I wasn't the one who started this shit-show. I'm simply responding to the mindless trolls who say I'm wrong without a reasoned argument.