Your "pros" have absolutely zero understanding of how the game works apart from stats and how to abuse them, which is also fairly evident from how little they have posted in the commander revamp feedback topic as well.
And lastly, the reasons why UKF and USF are underperforming and are less picked are fairly obvious in their design flaws and don't require an APM God computer like multitasker to acknowledge. For one reason or another tho Relic only wants to address around 50% of the UKF's weakness and that's about it.
Show me where "pros" touched you.
So you think that to be good in this game means abusing stuff? That's just a very silly statement to put it mildly. The reason they are good is because they know how and when to use any given unit\ability , read their opponent and know how to react to any given situation.
The reason they are silent are probably 1. they don't see a point giving any feedback since probably no one listens to it on forums 2. they already did give it 3. their opinion is considered to be worth just as much as anyone's therefore it doesn't matter.
And the reason their feedback is more useful: 1. they know factions in and out 2. they have years' worth experience 3. they are very unlikely to be biased since they play all factions very well.
So you think that to be good in this game means abusing stuff? That's just a very silly statement to put it midly. The reason they are good is because they know how and when to use any given unit\ability , read their opponent and know how to react to any given situation.
The reason they are silent are probably 1. they don't see a point giving any feedback since probably no one listens to it on forums 2. they already did give it 3. their opinion is considered to be worth just as much as anyone's therefore it doesn't matter.
And the reason their feedback is more useful: 1. they know factions in and out 2. they have years' worth experience 3. they are very unlikely to be biased since they play all factions very well.
I was just about to say this. How ironic of one to say that the best players in the game have no knowledge and just know how to abuse stuff. The forums seem to lack respect for the tournament players. I've seen Luvnest and VonIvan on the forums before and their opinions were ignored.
I'm gonna clarify this thread again: If we're going to base our balancing decisions off of GCS results, then let the GCS players tell us how to balance the game. If we're going to balance the game based on the results of noobs on automatch, then let the noobs balance the game.
Because right now we're basing our balancing decisions off of GCS but letting any random dude on the forums influence the balancing decisions. THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
Your "pros" have absolutely zero understanding of how the game works apart from stats and how to abuse them, which is also fairly evident from how little they have posted in the commander revamp feedback topic as well.
You know these pros stream?
You know they voice their opinions there?
You realize if they made a constructive post here explaining stuff and giving examples, nublets would just dismiss it and go back to fighting for their one singular faction they have ever played or just endlessly derail to argue semantics over actual issues?
Also, if just abusing op strats is all it takes to be top, why we don't see you at top 10 yet? You clearly know how to get there and there is no logical reason why you wouldn't be there with that awareness.
So you think that to be good in this game means abusing stuff? That's just a very silly statement to put it mildly. The reason they are good is because they know how and when to use any given unit\ability , read their opponent and know how to react to any given situation.
The reason they are silent are probably 1. they don't see a point giving any feedback since probably no one listens to it on forums 2. they already did give it 3. their opinion is considered to be worth just as much as anyone's therefore it doesn't matter.
And the reason their feedback is more useful: 1. they know factions in and out 2. they have years' worth experience 3. they are very unlikely to be biased since they play all factions very well.
Any monkey with half a brain can do that, they are just more in depth that's all, and I admit that.
Further more on your second point is that it's bullshit, it's fairly obvious that the community team are listening if they've implemented many community suggestions in the revamp mod.
And lastly, I have been playing CoH since 2006 and I doubt most people on here have my experience, plus I have modded both games and have a pretty good understanding on how something works, what's possible and what's not and how to implement it.
So being famous and understanding the stats and ways of playing aside I don't see why their opinions should matter or be put all above else.
Also, if just abusing op strats is all it takes to be top, why we don't see you at top 10 yet? You clearly know how to get there and there is no logical reason why you wouldn't be there with that awareness.
Want an example? Stuve with the British currently, a person even made a topic about it on here because of his use of Advanced Emplacements Regiment.
Your "pros" have absolutely zero understanding of how the game works apart from stats and how to abuse them, which is also fairly evident from how little they have posted in the commander revamp feedback topic as well.
And lastly, the reasons why UKF and USF are underperforming and are less picked are fairly obvious in their design flaws and don't require an APM God computer like multitasker to acknowledge. For one reason or another tho Relic only wants to address around 50% of the UKF's weakness and that's about it.
Give them the most underpowered unit composition in the game and I can bet most of these pros would beat you using only that composition in 1v1. No stat abuse there and yet you would be totally destroyed. Now tell me how much can you know about ballance, if whether your unit wins or loses depends only on the micro difference between you and your opponent, or in your particular case the stupidness of the AI? I'll tell you: nothing at all. Only the players who play on the same, highest level, where every slight mistake or stat difference makes a real difference can know anything in that regard. And even they have way too little data to use for improving ballance. Just accept that.
Any monkey with half a brain can do that, they are just more in depth that's all, and I admit that.
Further more on your second point is that it's bullshit, it's fairly obvious that the community team are listening if they've implemented many community suggestions in the revamp mod.
And lastly, I have been playing CoH since 2006 and I doubt most people on here have my experience, plus I have modded both games and have a pretty good understanding on how something works, what's possible and what's not and how to implement it.
So being famous and understanding the stats and ways of playing aside I don't see why their opinions should matter or be put all above else.
According to you it's so easy to be a pro. You just opened my eyes.
Don't see what's bs about it if it's one of possibilites that I mentioned.
And your last point, I should have said "top level/competetive experience" because obviously there are a lot people following the franchise since the beginning. And sorry your modding experience is not even close to gameplay experience that I meant.
Want an example? Stuve with the British currently, a person even made a topic about it on here because of his use of Advanced Emplacements Regiment.
Stuve is good with a lot factions it's not like he's a scrub that got carried by that cancer. So not a good example. It would be if some other scrub would actually be carried to top with this tactic.
Give them the most underpowered unit composition in the game and I can bet most of these pros would beat you using only that composition in 1v1. No stat abuse there and yet you would be totally destroyed. Now tell me how much can you know about ballance, if whether your unit wins or loses depends only on the micro difference between you and your opponent, or in your particular case the stupidness of the AI? I'll tell you: nothing at all. Only the players who play on the same, highest level, where every slight mistake or stat difference makes a real difference can know anything in that regard. And even they have way too little data to use for improving ballance. Just accept that.
This. Just for an example VonIvan recently played some 1v1 games where he gave his opponents 3 minute head start. He still won all of them.
So long as the Balance Forums are a mess of very loud, very biased people rattling their respective single-faction-themed sabres at each other I doubt it'll ever be taken seriously by Relic as a balancing resource.
Remember coh2.org isn't an official Relic website. The Balance Forums exist to give a space for people to talk about balance, given they're going to anyway. Nowhere is it implied that Relic actually reads them.
Give them the most underpowered unit composition in the game and I can bet most of these pros would beat you using only that composition in 1v1. No stat abuse there and yet you would be totally destroyed. Now tell me how much can you know about ballance, if whether your unit wins or loses depends only on the micro difference between you and your opponent, or in your particular case the stupidness of the AI? I'll tell you: nothing at all. Only the players who play on the same, highest level, where every slight mistake or stat difference makes a real difference can know anything in that regard. And even they have way too little data to use for improving ballance. Just accept that.
If they can take the most underpowered unit composition then why were USF and UKF the least chosen Armies and at the same time the Armies with the least wins?
If they can take the most underpowered unit composition then why were USF and UKF the least chosen Armies and at the same time the Armies with the least wins?
Because they played against players of their level, so they have chosen strategies they felt the strongest with. It doesn't mean they wouldn't win with other factions and compositions with weaker strats. The ability to do that is what makes them the best.
I had a match with you where I've beaten u handily. It seems you were triggered that I posted the replay on the forums. You just play USF/UKF 1v1. You wouldn't know how storms are like especially when u think thompson paras are UP. Stg storms are inferior to thompson paras, now with mp40s, they're even worse. Just prove to me how they're wayyyyyyyyyy better. I've provided facts, you've provided nothing but your "feelings" (as usual).
Yes, balance discussion ARE pointless IF there is no consistency. If the balance team gives the cold shoulder to both allied AND axis noobs on the forums, I'd be happy but like I said, the TA and KT were nerfed because the bal team DID listen to allied noobs but axis players are ignored.
You beat me handily because I was trying out a stupid strategy for fun. If I recall correctly you also lost 2 p4s to an at gun that game. If you want, we could rematch and I’ll acrually try. That or stop referencing that meme of a match. Again, I’d be totally down for a rematch. Also, if you’d go read the thread you keep referencing, I agreed that Thompson paras are powerful and have their niche. Maybe that’s why I tried a meme build so I could make two of them. If you seriously think I was actually trying with a build that started with a rifle and an additional rear echelon I don’t know what to tell you mate. Stating you actually provide facts is a bit far fetched too.
For the third time, I’d be very happy to have a rematch with you this next weekend in a real game.
Because they played against players of their level, so they have chosen strategies they felt the strongest with. It doesn't mean they wouldn't win with other factions and compositions with weaker strats. The ability to do that is what makes them the best.
Yeah except that even when brits did get picked they lost an overwhelming majority of their games.
I'm gonna clarify this thread again: If we're going to base our balancing decisions off of GCS results, then let the GCS players tell us how to balance the game. If we're going to balance the game based on the results of noobs on automatch, then let the noobs balance the game.
Because right now we're basing our balancing decisions off of GCS but letting any random dude on the forums influence the balancing decisions. THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
These GCS players probably aren't willing to step in considering how ready some people are to threaten and personally attack them when they dont like something
These GCS players probably aren't willing to step in considering how ready some people are to threaten and personally attack them when they dont like something
Hm this sounds familiar but I cant seem to put my hand on it
These GCS players probably aren't willing to step in considering how ready some people are to threaten and personally attack them when they dont like something
You beat me handily because I was trying out a stupid strategy for fun. If I recall correctly you also lost 2 p4s to an at gun that game. If you want, we could rematch and I’ll acrually try. That or stop referencing that meme of a match. Again, I’d be totally down for a rematch. Also, if you’d go read the thread you keep referencing, I agreed that Thompson paras are powerful and have their niche. Maybe that’s why I tried a meme build so I could make two of them. If you seriously think I was actually trying with a build that started with a rifle and an additional rear echelon I don’t know what to tell you mate. Stating you actually provide facts is a bit far fetched too.
For the third time, I’d be very happy to have a rematch with you this next weekend in a real game.
Yeah except that even when brits did get picked they lost an overwhelming majority of their games.
Will you be streaming that match? Id love to spectate that one...
"This forum is affectionately referred to also as "The Latrine."
Go to war with other forums users (and the devs) about how you feel COH2 should be balanced!"
It's not like there hasn't been attempts to improve it. But any kind of improvement necessarily means that a big group of users won't be posting on this subsection anymore, or at least this should be limited in some way. This is a "design" decision, worthy of talking again only when coh3.org is been released.
I've said this many times. If Relic/balance team is going to use GCS or other tournament results to dictate which factions that are going to be buffed and which to be nerfed, why doesn't Relic/bal team simply ask the tournament players how to balance the game???!!!!! It was the tournament players that brought about the results that you're basing balancing decisions on, why not ask the players who created the results what to do to improve balance because the people that best understand why the results are like this ARE THE PROS THEMSELVES?
This implies you know they haven't been contacted in any way whatsoever or that they want their opinions to be known by others because...
These GCS players probably aren't willing to step in considering how ready some people are to threaten and personally attack them when they dont like something
Hmmm...
I mean it's not like several top ranked players haven't been staff around here back in the past and know how it feels to deal with people that only want to find a scapegoat to throw away their rants and tantrums at.
Why is Relic/bal team asking randoms on the forums how to balance based on a tournament in which they did not participate in?
I'll say you have both objective and perception feedback. I think that both are important, the second one been at least perceived (aka been in touch with the "community"). In the perception aspect, at least you should ask why people think something the way they do, even if the stats imply the complete opposite (AKA what happened to MP40 Storms feedback).
The solution is clear
1) Either heed the GCS results and ask the tournament players how to balance the game. This forum might as well close down the balance section of the website because the thoughts of the lower 99% don't matter and hence if you wanna get good, watch the pros and copy their op build orders, cheese tactics, and game mechanic abuse they may be exploiting. There will be absolutely ZERO room for creativity. Play meta OR LOSE.
The solution is not clear.
Don't bring the false dichotomy implying that it's either the "pro" players way or the average joe one, specially when you bring the assumption that balancing in that way means killing creativity. Also the beauty about the avg joe is that he is not affected by "meta" because balance is solved out through matchmaking.
2) Or start supporting coh2chart.com again with updated winrate data and let everyone know how the average and above avg players are performing and base balance off of those results. GCS will be hosted merely for hype purposes.
These GCS players probably aren't willing to step in considering how ready some people are to threaten and personally attack them when they dont like something
Ah, I knew you'd come knocking Jae. Your stormtrooper idea was BEYOND BAD. I HAD to call u out on it. In fact, the reason I made a poll was to gather evidence that the CoH2 community was strongly against the changes that you've implemented. And I was right. The polls have shown by a WIDE MARGIN that the Coh2 community is not in favor of any drastic changes to the unit. In other words, I respect your authority a lot more than, let's say, people like Katitof. I actually gathered hard evidence against your idea before confronting u. I only grew angry when you brushed the poll aside and claimed your idea was awesome and ignored me. Don't say that it was just ME who didn't like your idea. I showed u a poll.
I was in disbelief that a top 100 player could propose such a horrible idea.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
