Mirror Match

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."

Pro mirror match boils down to: it's better for competivity- particularly tournaments; could be interesting.
Con mirror match boils down to: could be boring.

It being boring or not is what it always boils down to in this, since you really can't argue against the competivity other than that a player needs to know more than one faction - which isn't a 100% so since you can win a BO3 2-1 with the preferred faction, and a BO5 3-2.

And what's the best way of finding out whether it's boring or not? You can either look at some existing games, or you play the damn alpha. Since the second option takes a lot less extrapolating and assuming, why don't we pend judgement for a bit?

And what's the best way of finding out whether it's boring or not? You can either look at some existing games, or you play the damn alpha. Since the second option takes a lot less extrapolating and assuming, why don't we pend judgement for a bit?

This is literally exactly what I said in my 2nd post in this topic. I completely agree.

Well I have enjoyed the mirror matchups and have not found them too boring yet.

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.

and that's EXACTLY how i felt about you :-)
ignoring the relevant parts, twisting words, misinterpreting...

i gave plenty of reasons why (i think) mirror matchups will not be something that will add to the game if available in automatch. if they are available in automatch, they are forced upon you, if they are available just for basic matches... who the fuck cares? and your argument about just having them for basic games would be pointless... so you also think that all 4v4, almost all 3v3 maps, most 2v2 maps, and quite a few 1v1 maps should've been added to CoH? they're not in automatch afterall... they don't add to competitiveness... Yes, but they can still be fun in some way or another, and it doesn't need to be balanced. automatch needs to be reasonably balanced. with mirror matchups it will be even less balanced (or even harder to balance). Also: (again) look at other games with mirror matchups... i'd guess in 95% of those games mirror matchups are the ones that are despised the most, for whatever reason.

Con mirror match boils down to: could be boring.

like i said, "could be boring" (or in my opinion: "very likely to be boring") is not even the important part... it's the balance that i'm worried about.

even if you say "oh, most of that is map imbalances". even if it is 100% map imbalances... the maps that are balanced for mirror matchups are most likely horrible for non mirrors and vice versa.

also: i don't see how mirrors add to competetiveness (and this has also been mentioned earlier).
or asking the other way around: explain HOW they add to competetiveness?

last point: if relic manages to perfectly balance both mirror matchups and non mirrors, then i don't care about mirrors at all.

Right. I'm done.

like i said, "could be boring" (or in my opinion: "very likely to be boring") is not even the important part... it's the balance that i'm worried about.

It should be an important part, I tend to play games for entertainment.

even if you say "oh, most of that is map imbalances". even if it is 100% map imbalances... the maps that are balanced for mirror matchups are most likely horrible for non mirrors and vice versa.

That's why I'd greatly like a discussion on symmetry and asymmetry in RTS games. See Arne's post, and the time I repeated it.

also: i don't see how mirrors add to competetiveness (and this has also been mentioned earlier).
or asking the other way around: explain HOW they add to competetiveness?

Letting the faction pick be decided by VPs from previous games is not elegant.

Letting the faction pick be decided by VPs from previous games is not elegant.

But you would have the exact same issue even with mirror matches if the first two games resulted in a draw. If game 3 is a mirror match it won't be fair unless the map is totally symmetrical. Totally symmetrical maps won't be balanced for Russia vs. Ostheer games and likely wouldn't be much fun either.

It should be an important part, I tend to play games for entertainment.

me too, for the most part :-) but i will not have any fun playing the game if it is unbalanced as fuck (which does not mean that even a perfectly balanced matchup might not be boring)

That's why I'd greatly like a discussion on symmetry and asymmetry in RTS games. See Arne's post, and the time I repeated it.

imho, no need to... because i totally agree with you both on that one... i also feel like asymmetric gameplay makes for far more entertaining matches both playing and watching. again: look at SC2, or imagine a vCoH wehr vs. wehr matchup where both go for piospam....

Letting the faction pick be decided by VPs from previous games is not elegant.

i agree too... but VP lead probably is the "best" method in this case (though i think that is not a mirror/non-mirror specific issue: you still might have the problem of starting position pick or map pick or... or... or...).

If game 3 is a mirror match it won't be fair unless the map is totally symmetrical. Totally symmetrical maps won't be balanced for Russia vs. Ostheer games and likely wouldn't be much fun either.

*Citation needed

imho, no need to... because i totally agree with you both on that one... i also feel like asymmetric gameplay makes for far more entertaining matches both playing and watching. again: look at SC2, or imagine a vCoH wehr vs. wehr matchup where both go for piospam....

Well, we shouldn't forget that SCII is quite a different game, which is why I'd like some input regarding the mirror matches in DoW 2 which is certainly a lot closer to CoH.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very sceptical that mirror matches would be *fun*; I'm just not completely convinced yet.
I'm even less convinced when it comes to symmetric/asymmetric maps. Are symmetric maps really a lot less enjoyable?

I write this having not played the alpha, so there may be problems with this analysis. However, that said:

The key to mirror match viability is multiple (and viable) tech paths. So long as each faction has several viable tech paths that can be competitive against each other, there should be nothing wrong with mirror matches. In fact, they may even be interesting.

Ex: Infantry focus vs. tank focus. Assuming the existence of good infantry AT when used well, this could be entertaining.

Or infantry vs. combined arms. Or tank vs. combined arms. Or even infantry vs. infantry or tank vs. tank, so long as each has a variety of soft-medium counters and do not rely on rock/paper/scissors mechanics.

My point is that as long as there is weapon diversity and several viable tech paths, mirror matches will be fine. Problems will occur only if one tech path proves unbeatable… but that is what balance patches are for.

For me it is not a question of balance or mirror matches being boring. I simply find mirror matches in CoH2 to be obnoxious.

This is not an opinion I can chose to ignore, and I certainly am not trying to persuade anyone else to adopt it.

Call it a character flaw if you like but unfortunately finding mirror matches aesthetically offensive seems to be a rather common one.

I think it likely that mirror matches would end up being worse for competitive play than their absence by cutting into the viewership that drives seriously competitive games.

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.

We only want mirror matches for competitive reasons. Having it in basic only defeats the whole point.

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.

You can't say its a symmetrical map with identitical factions then claim one side has an advantage - obviously a oximoronic statement.

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.

DoW2 I enjoyed mirrors. WC3 I enjoyed mirrors.

Yeah I do understand after reading Sepha and Razors arguments for it. I will support it as well. It could only be better for Company of Heroes in the public eye.

Mirror matches? No, please ...
It just kills the game.

We could make a poll.

Mirror matches? No, please ...
It just kills the game.

Glad to see people jumping in with well reasoned opinions that respond to the arguments that people on the opposite side of the spectrum are making.

Tycho, the king of sarcasm xD

I've always enjoyed your casts, man.. You're gonna cast CoH(2) again?

Thumbs up for UFO:EU Let's play... it was up at about the same time i've played it again.

To anyone wondering why mirror matches have to be balanced, I can just suggest that they look past the fact that both players have the exact same tools at their disposal and realize that in a mirror match some tools have to be balanced with tools that they otherwise wouldn't need to be balanced with.

In coh terms, each and every teching path of the wehrmacht has to be balanced with each and every other alternate tech choice. For example, tier 1>2>3 Wehr might be balanced vs tier 1>4 Ami, but would it be viable vs tier 1>4 wehr play? Probably not...

As foreign as the thought is, I would provide my consent to mirror matches, as long as the balance changes they require don't diminish the interplay of the Soviets and the Ostheer.

In any case, I deeply hope that the various commanders will provide enough variation to render mirror matches necessary in terms of added content.

In coh terms, each and every teching path of the wehrmacht has to be balanced with each and every other alternate tech choice. For example, tier 1>2>3 Wehr might be balanced vs tier 1>4 Ami, but would it be viable vs tier 1>4 wehr play? Probably not...

As foreign as the thought is, I would provide my consent to mirror matches, as long as the balance changes they require don't diminish the interplay of the Soviets and the Ostheer.

That's the question. Americans were balanced around needing AT by a certain time (arrival time of the Puma). A mirror M8 would dominate the matchup, there would be no alternative to Motorpool tech. To create diversity in the mirror you would have to change how US AT worked, affecting US vs WM.

I can't say whether Soviet vs Soviet or Ostheer vs Ostheer will have these same kind of issues. Right now it doesn't look like it, but it's way too early to tell.

I have to say, the reactions to mirror matches are just about what we thought they'd be - pretty much split down the middle with people either really loving them or really hating them. Lots of good points in here both for and against.