Mirror Match

I am against mirror matches in Ladder, ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. No this cannot be allowed. In custom games I could not care less, but NOT in ladder.

I see your point but I think that's more due to a lack of decent, balanced maps.

Wouldn't all the random stuff in CoH reduce mass appeal for e-sports anyway? It isn't just due to the lack of mirror matches that CoH isn't more popular, is it?

Lack of balanced maps is a factor, too. As is the role played by the RNG. But that's not really an argument against mirror matches: "well these things could potentially suck too, so why bother?" I don't see how anyone could possibly consider something that would eliminate a massive imbalance from tournaments as a bad thing for the competitive scene in any way, shape or form. It would be a giant leap forward for CoH 2 (assuming Relic find the mirror match balance viable, of course.)

thats wher you are wrong... mirror matches just introduce more opportunities for lopsided matches

But I'm not wrong though, am I? Care to elaborate?

As I've said before, there seems to be plenty of people making an awful lot of noise about how terrible mirror matches are, and barely anyone bringing up any good points in support of their reactionary opinions. I fully expected it on the official forums, but not here. And that's a real shame for CoH 2.

I am against mirror matches in Ladder, ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. No this cannot be allowed. In custom games I could not care less, but NOT in ladder.

But whyyyyyyyyyyy

But I'm not wrong though, am I? Care to elaborate?

How so? A mirror match be definition is perfectly balanced.

okay, let's say wehr mirror on ango (which is a symmetrical map).
perfectly balanced, right? imho: wrong. south wehr is a whole lot easier to play than north.
similarly i'd prefer south langres, south semois, north sturz etc. etc. etc.
another thing i already mentioned, is that usually in mirror matchups the diversity of tactics that are available just isn't there (at least in most other RTS games). it basically is "do this build, or you risk getting your ass handed to you by a player that might not even be half as good as you are".

also: if you think there's been no points made as to why mirror matchups should not be in automatch, then you haven't read this thread at all, which is a shame for coh2 :-P

mirror matchups are not a thing that will break the game for me, but i'd still prefer not having them.

okay, let's say wehr mirror on ango (which is a symmetrical map).

Well except it is not symmetrical and that's where your conclusion comes from. There's no map even remotely symmetrical in COH, we're talking about every single pixel at the same place, not some similitude in territory layout (which even there is also not the case because VP).

The closest to it would probably be Semois, which is - consequently or not - the best map, and I could totally see mirror working there without much adjustement needed in either the map or the army (for WM as you said, as every other army mirror would totally suck without a lot of adjustements - quite fortunately WM is also the closest from COH to armies in COH2).

okay, let's say wehr mirror on ango (which is a symmetrical map).
perfectly balanced, right? imho: wrong. south wehr is a whole lot easier to play than north.
similarly i'd prefer south langres, south semois, north sturz etc. etc. etc.

None of those maps are symmetrical in any way, other than the sectors on Ango and Semois. Even assuming what you said was true, which it isn't, but assuming it was, you'd still run into that problem without mirror matches: whoever gets to play the faction that's strongest on that map, in that position, would have a better chance of winning. That's a map imbalance issue, not a mirror match issue.

another thing i already mentioned, is that usually in mirror matchups the diversity of tactics that are available just isn't there (at least in most other RTS games). it basically is "do this build, or you risk getting your ass handed to you by a player that might not even be half as good as you are".

That's a crazy assertion to make considering the alpha has only been out for but a few days. Even so, that would be an issue with intra-faction balance, and to my knowledge, most people in favour of mirror matches have stated quite clearly that if the mirror match balance just isn't working out for Relic, then they shouldn't be in the game. Nobody wants that kind of imbalance for any of the factions, mirror or not. But that's not an issue that's solely related to mirror matches, and it's certainly not a reasonable argument against them.

also: if you think there's been no points made as to why mirror matchups should not be in automatch, then you haven't read this thread at all, which is a shame for coh2 :-P

Please quote every single reasonable, well thought-out and supported argument against mirror matches in this thread.

Arguments against mirrors? Main argument is... no, not so-called realism/Authenticity... it's about balance. I love Relic but I doubt they'll create SC1 balance in mirrored COH2.

Let's look. Without mirrors it'll be:

RA x Wehr
RA+RA x Wehr+Wehr

With enabled mirrors they need to balance:

RA x Wehr
RA x RA
Wehr x Wehr
RA+RA x Wehr+Wehr
RA+Wehr x RA+Wehr
RA+RA x RA+RA
Wehr+Wehr x Wehr+Wehr
RA+Wehr x Wehr+Wehr
Ra+Wehr x RA+RA

No comments about 3v3 and 4v4. Don't forget about 14 different commanders (at this moment). Now is the question for those who want "Hey, it's ok for mirrors for fun not automatch!" - you really think Relic must spend their resources to balance at least 9 match-ups just for fun?

As a summary - mirrors'll create additional pain-in-the-ass for Relic so I don't think they'll do it.

I'm yet to see a game where mirror match is fun. So I'm strongly against mirrors in CoH. I haven't seen it in the game yet, true, but chances are on it being boring.

Arguments against mirrors? Main argument is... no, not so-called realism/Authenticity... it's about balance. I love Relic but I doubt they'll create SC1 balance in mirrored COH2.

Let's look. Without mirrors it'll be:

RA x Wehr
RA+RA x Wehr+Wehr

With enabled mirrors they need to balance:

RA x Wehr
RA x RA
Wehr x Wehr
RA+RA x Wehr+Wehr
RA+Wehr x RA+Wehr
RA+RA x RA+RA
Wehr+Wehr x Wehr+Wehr
RA+Wehr x Wehr+Wehr
Ra+Wehr x RA+RA

No comments about 3v3 and 4v4. Don't forget about 14 different commanders (at this moment). Now is the question for those who want "Hey, it's ok for mirrors for fun not automatch!" - you really think Relic must to spend their resources to balance at least 9 match-ups just for fun?

As a summary - mirrors'll create additional pain-in-the-ass for Relic so I don't think they'll do it.

Good point!

If we're talking on the level of entertainment, I don't understand why everyone seems to ignore Arne's argument:

Actually I think they said somewhere that they were going to make some more symetrical maps for competitive play.

A lot of CoH's charm came from the forced asymmetries and still the more symmetrical games (rax vs Volksspam or standard wehr t1 against wsc starts) were usually a lot less fun to play. I guess it's worth testing mirror matches in the alpha and beta, but the focus should be on wehr vs soviets. I can only see mirrormatches working in games that put much more focus on economy and teching.

The US vs. Wehr early game, with rifles flanking MGs, that is so enjoyable is thoroughly assymetric. WSC starts are indeed dreadfully boring to play (against). I agree with Arne that asymmetry does look like an important factor in making the game entertaining. In the case of vCoH vs. OF, any "asymmetric entertainment" is overshadowed by poor faction design, perhaps.
So, my question is to those who played DoW 2 (and not to those who are genuinely horrible at it), how does asymmetry affect the different matchups there?

Well except it is not symmetrical and that's where your conclusion comes from. There's no map even remotely symmetrical in COH, we're talking about every single pixel at the same place, not some similitude in territory layout (which even there is also not the case because VP).

See, this is just you requiring a overzealous degree of symmetry for a map to qualify as symmetric. That might be necessary in SC where every pixel and nanosecond weigh heavy on who wins the game. But a beautiful thing about CoH is that it is "slow", there's a ceiling to how much APM effects the game, where planning and choices counts much more. imho, of course.
If CoH has an equal outlay of resources with equal distances, we're reaching the point of "good enough" (and other big map-effects such as houses and substantial shot-blockers). No map was ever imbalanced because one side had a small piece of yellow cover and the other a small piece of green cover. I hope the same goes for CoH2.

Please quote every single reasonable, well thought-out and supported argument against mirror matches in this thread.

What a ridiculous, trollish statement.

If an argument does not suddenly convince you to turn the entire matter on its head, heavenly light beaming down and fat women singing, it doesn't mean it is not a good argument; only that you fail to recognize it as a good argument. That's it. That is why people in democracies vote, you know? Different things are important to different people, there is no "truth" to such matters.

Nobody here is trying to actually convince you, that's just an illusion created by the way we present out statements. In the end, this thread is an archive to be read by others, who are undecided in the matter at hand, and rather than spending hours contemplating for and against the question of mirror matches, spend a few minutes skimming the thread and then make up their minds. Very few of those posting in this thread will have their opinions changed.

What a ridiculous, trollish statement.

If an argument does not suddenly convince you to turn the entire matter on its head, heavenly light beaming down and fat women singing, it doesn't mean it is not a good argument; only that you fail to recognize it as a good argument.

Nobody in this entire thread has made a good point against mirror matches except Budwise. Not one.

Say you're playing a BO3 Wehr vs Wehr mirror match to find the best player. Unless the map is totally symmetrical one starting position will be better than the other, so you switch sides in the second match. It's a draw after two games. How do you decide who plays from which position in the last game?

How is this any different from the current BO3 situation?

Well when you design a game like COH which has 2 factions; units, abilities, doctrines also designed to counter each other, at least suppose to be. That's why they are not identical except very few units. Mirror match up can be most competitive just to find out who is the best Ost or Su player but for me at least it's not interesting to see same type of units attacking each other. Unit-Strat-Tech Counters make COH interesting, at least for me. That's why if there will be a voting, my vote is gonna be simply negative to this whole mirror idea.

That's a crazy assertion to make considering the alpha has only been out for but a few days. Even so, that would be an issue with intra-faction balance, and to my knowledge, most people in favour of mirror matches have stated quite clearly that if the mirror match balance just isn't working out for Relic, then they shouldn't be in the game. Nobody wants that kind of imbalance for any of the factions, mirror or not. But that's not an issue that's solely related to mirror matches, and it's certainly not a reasonable argument against them.

it's a crazy assertion that i was talking about the alpha, since i never said i was in the alpha, and even if i was, i would break an NDA by talking about it.

and it IS a reasonable argument against them.... like you said: "then they shouldn't be in the game".


and to quote you: nobody has made a reasonable argument FOR mirror matchups. and if you start quoting them: they are all unreasonable :-P


about completely symmetric maps: i can't image anything more boring than mirrored maps for mirror matchups...

mirror matches with mirror maps, that will be very cool.




MG42 vs MG42 anyone?

Say you're playing a BO3 Wehr vs Wehr mirror match to find the best player. Unless the map is totally symmetrical one starting position will be better than the other, so you switch sides in the second match. It's a draw after two games. How do you decide who plays from which position in the last game?

How is this any different from the current BO3 situation?

That's an issue of map imbalance. Mirror matches aren't going to suddenly make the game 100% balanced, I'm certainly not claiming that, but they will completely eliminate utter one-faction dominance on maps where a single faction is absolutely more suited to that particular map. Most of the "bad" maps in CoH are considered bad for that very reason: they absolutley favour one faction over another, thus making them unplayable in tournaments, which leads to Ango/Langres/Semois every single time.

it's a crazy assertion that i was talking about the alpha, since i never said i was in the alpha, and even if i was, i would break an NDA by talking about it.

and it IS a reasonable argument against them.... like you said: "then they shouldn't be in the game".

I never mentioned you being in the alpha, so I didn't make an asserion and really have no idea why you went off on one there. You are making definitive statements about a game that has barely even begun alpha testing. That's what I said there. And no, it isn't a reasonable argument. Pure speculation of the potential meta-game based on absolutely nothing other than your own imagination isn't an argument.

Mirror matches shouldn't be in the game if they're unable to be balanced. Just like abilities, or units, or commanders or maps shouldn't be in the game if they're unable to be balanced. Should they remove absolutely everything before even testing it, "in case it can't be balanced?" No. That's mental. That's my point.

and to quote you: nobody has made a reasonable argument FOR mirror matchups. and if you start quoting them: they are all unreasonable :-P


about completely symmetric maps: i can't image anything more boring than mirrored maps for mirror matchups...

Razor, Seph and TychoCelchuuu have all brought up some good, well-reasoned points that support mirror matches. And again, your entire argument has boiled down to "it's boring, I don't like it."

again: you ignore everything i write but the things that fit you.

first, you say "i never mentioned (you being in the) alpha", then in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE, you are again referencing (me talking about the) alpha. i made general statements about hypothetical situations.

and to quote you again: the points that everybody brought up that support mirror matchups "are unreasonable, because i think so".

if you don't believe that mirror matchups are bad:
1. go look at other games with mirror matchups, namely SC2.
2. look at mirror matchup strategies.
3. look up what i wrote earlier about strategies in mirror matchups.
4. ignore it.
5. quote some other part of what i said.
6. say i'm unreasonable and that only pro mirror matchup arguments are valid.
7. ???
8. profit

That's an issue of map imbalance. Mirror matches aren't going to suddenly make the game 100% balanced, I'm certainly not claiming that, but they will completely eliminate utter one-faction dominance on maps where a single faction is absolutely more suited to that particular map. Most of the "bad" maps in CoH are considered bad for that very reason: they absolutley favour one faction over another, thus making them unplayable in tournaments, which leads to Ango/Langres/Semois every single time.

Exactly, it's a map balance issue. To find the best player all you really need is balanced factions and balanced maps. There is no intrinsic need for mirror matches to find the best player.

again: you ignore everything i write but the things that fit you.

first, you say "i never mentioned (you being in the) alpha", then in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE, you are again referencing (me talking about the) alpha. i made general statements about hypothetical situations.

and to quote you again: the points that everybody brought up that support mirror matchups "are unreasonable, because i think so".

if you don't believe that mirror matchups are bad:
1. go look at other games with mirror matchups, namely SC2.
2. look at mirror matchup strategies.
3. look up what i wrote earlier about strategies in mirror matchups.
4. ignore it.
5. quote some other part of what i said.
6. say i'm unreasonable and that only pro mirror matchup arguments are valid.
7. ???
8. profit

I think you're just arguing for arguments sake now. I'm not sure if you're deliberately misunderstanding me, or are just being a dick because I disagree with you, but I literally don't know how to respond to you when you go off on irrelevant tangents instead of addressing what I am actually saying.

Exactly, it's a map balance issue. To find the best player all you really need is balanced factions and balanced maps. There is no intrinsic need for mirror matches to find the best player.

You're absolutely right. If we had 100% perfectly balanced factions and 100% perfectly balanced maps, there would be no need for mirror matches other than to have more variety. However, 100% balance almost certainly isn't going to be achieved in either of those fields, and the tiniest little map imbalances are amplified by any inter-faction imbalance. This could be smoothed over with mirror matches, allowing more maps to be played at a competitive level while the balance is being tweaked. Which, in my mind, is a much better situation than having to play the same 3 maps over and over again because one faction loses on every other map 90% of the time.