Profile of Esxile

Avatar Area

Offline unknown
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1

General Information
Steam: 76561197961387624


Thread: Spamm or skill ?29 Aug 2014, 13:13 PM The main issue is that each of us has his definition of blobbing. Independently from numbers of squads in the same area, we face other issues like squad function in the group. Let's take a 3 squads example, it can works with 4 squads as well: Is it blobbing to have a engineer minesweeper with 2 volks/penals/rifles/whatever going forward? Is it blobbing to have a dedicated AI long range squad close to a AI short range squad and close to a AT squad? Why would they suffer penalties? Only because they are close to each other? In the same idea, you may have regrouped them around your truck to heal them, and you're now under attack. Would you agree to suffer penalties for that? What we call blobbing is attacking, most likely with a A-move in a direction. But there are many others situation where you aren't blobbing but keep your squads close to each other. This brings me to say that blobbing isn't the issue in fact. Blobbing in the early game isn't an issue because counters exist: MG/HMG/AI trucks, they all rip of blobs. The problem comes when the blob squads gain extra weapons and vet. The blob becomes at this time too much effective and an MG/HMG cannot handle it anymore alone. Additional blob extra weapons + vet is superior than MG/HMG vet. Trucks are quite ok but when comes the late game are too vulnerable to ATguns,med tanks and heavy tanks. What I propose is to found a way to better buff MG/HMG in the late game so it can continue to counter blobs. I think their DPS with vet is enough, increasing it would brings some negative side effects. As ideas to improve those counters, going with veterancy: - better resistance to grenade - faster deployment rate - larger sigh of vision or larger cone of fire (depending of the MG model) - Vet3 HMG/MG able to use grenade to defend themselve, can only be launch in the cone of fire. Other ideas? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: What happened to Relic?29 Aug 2014, 10:17 AM vCoh was an experiment and you can truly expect more than an experiment when its sequel comes out. They had the design, they had the gameplay and they added weirdos stuff like deep snow and blizzard... which completely breaks the essence of the game. Adding it in the campaign is nice, not the multi-player modes. From now the two only good improvements I can see so far is the true sign and being able to pass over walls and edges with your squads. I mean, what I like in COH2 is what remains from vcoh and the little they did to improve that experience, all the rest that comes from other design ideas seems just... not bad, just non-adapted to the game, like how they change the upkeep/popcap concept and how game after game I can see the limit of it. Still I like that game, but still there is something wrong in it. About vCOH and COH2 support comparison, it's difficult to do, 8 years ago, it wasn't possible to bring 50-100mo patchs on the net every months. And vCOH was a new concept, I can understand it takes time to develop en ensure changes will not breach the essence of the game. But 8 years later when so much has already been changed... In: Lobby
Thread: Spamm or skill ?28 Aug 2014, 15:29 PM Jump back to quoted post28 Aug 2014, 15:00 PMSlaYoU Still you dodge the real question: do you understand what is a bottleneck ? I don't think so, and Bambabam theory is completely valid, unless you bring some miracle out of nowhere, but i fear you won't convince anyone, since we "fail at analytics" when we talk numbers, and you are just able to talk about feelings and "what if". Not a good enough approach, so i'll leave you there with your broken dreams. Bye. Ok, so let's demonstrate in couple of lines why this theory is wrong. This is the base of the theory: remember it? So, to make it easier to understand for you, I'll use absolute numbers. Whenever I'm online, there are around 6000 players online. Let's assume ~100 people are searching for games (which will be far to high, I guess it will be 10-20, but nevermind for now) and half of the players are playing online ( => 3000; which surely is not enough). So among these 3000, 1500 are playing allies, while the other 1500 play as axis. (please don't tell me you don't understand why) Now, in case all of the 100 peolpe searching selected axis, that makes a total of 1600 axis vs 1500 allies. 1600 / (1600 + 1500) = 51.6%. Not that much you see? With less people searching and more than half of the people playing, let's say 50 searching and 4000 playing, you have 2050/4050 = 50.6%. There is practically no difference in the player bases! For every player playing axis, there is exactly one player playing allies. Not more, not less. The few people searching do not change a thing. Well, so where does come from those numbers? is it an Estimation? So if he can use his own estimation, I'll use mine: Let's assume 1000 people are looking for a game and 20 people are playing the game. It's my own estimation. Over those 1000 persons, 800 are looking for a game as Axis and 200 as Ally. we are around 80%/20% Now, let's add those 20 actual players. 810 Axis and 210 Ally, 79.5% Axis and 20.5% Ally. Far from what he says isn't it? And now, I know what you're thinking and going to reply, but stop here already... stop stop tatatata !!!! Give me your sources!! You want to demonstrate you're right, give me the proof that your numbers are more realistic than mine, except from you own assumption or estimation. You cannot, because Relic doesn't communicate them. You cannot imagine numbers that confirm your theory, with no proof of their relevance and come to say "Look, my theory is right, those number I invented confirm it"!! It doesn't work like that. Otherwise, using the same schema I can demonstrate you that in 2015, Christmas Day will be the 34 of August. It is why I excluded the pool of players in game, because we don't know them, and I theorize over what people wants to play, and not what people is actually playing. We only know what the ratio of people willing to play Axis or Ally, the % showed while looking for a game. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Spamm or skill ?28 Aug 2014, 13:18 PM Jump back to quoted post28 Aug 2014, 07:36 AMSlaYoU If you are so good in the "analytics", why can't you even understand how a bottleneck works ? You have on one end, more liquid to put in a bathtub that it can drain (liquid = axis, drain = allies). Obviously, the level of water raises in the tub. I understood what you meant with your "first intention preference", as it actually makes sense. I kind of agree that among the allies players, there are probably a fair share who would have played axis if the queue wasn't so long. It contributes in the flushing process (to stick with the example i provided), but having a constant 80% axis searching doesn't mean there are 80% axis players. I took the time to compute what a real 80%/20% bottleneck is, and it spirals out of hand very very fast, since by the time you match 2 axis players with 2 allies, there are 4 new axis waiters for 1 new allie, and the % raises even higher than 80%. You would see a constant 100% axis players search if that was the case. Still observing 80/20 most of the time just shows that axis players are accumulating in the queue, yet they are matched frequently enough to not reach 100% ratio. I lack some english vocabulary in the math department, so maybe i didn't make my point clear enough. I never said 80% of people are playing Axis, it is of course impossible, I'm talking about preferences, people saying 80% of people play as Axis is a language dis-formation to say actually they want to play Axis and I don't understand why you guy are focusing on it, it sounds like demonstrating water is wet. Today people prefers playing Axis and it doesn't sound so incredible to understand. Anyway, Bambabam theory is still wrong and you shouldn't base you own assumption on it. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: When do you use attack-move?28 Aug 2014, 06:51 AM I always use A-move when I send a scout capping while I'm busy somewhere else. Long, mid, short range unit, it doesn't matter, if you're taken your pant off in red cover, better stay at max range to retreat faster or seek for a cover. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Spamm or skill ?28 Aug 2014, 06:23 AM Jump back to quoted post27 Aug 2014, 17:50 PMbämbabäm Read every word I wrote, but I guess that's too much to ask here "Yeah, we want to see the preferences of CoH2 players concerning faction choices, so let's just ignore 99% of the players." Ahhh I understand.... that's why during elections, only the votes of the people, who still wait in line 2 minutes before the election offices close, are counted when determining the will of the people! That makes total sense! Yeah, I guess even the best explanations are useless when even the most basic math skills are missing... SlaYoU, I will stop beating these dead math horses from now on (at least in this thread ). If you're good at math, definitively not at analytic. That's not a problem, it doesn't change anything, spamming your theory and taking weird example doesn't make it more "true". In: COH2 Balance
Thread: My thoughts & ideas on Conscripts27 Aug 2014, 14:37 PM Didn't know We were playing a symmetrical game. You are turning this forum like the official ones with this kind of post :/ In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Spamm or skill ?27 Aug 2014, 12:34 PM Jump back to quoted post27 Aug 2014, 10:33 AMbämbabäm Imagine you have 8 people searching as axis, 2 people searching as allies. Finally, matchmaking puts two if them into a game. If one new axis an one new allied player starts searching (which would be a 50/50 split for the newcomers), you still stay at 80% axis. A constant 80% searching axis does not neccessarily equal 80% wanting to play as axis at first, in fact you can't derive anything from these numbers alone (especially not your statement of "80% want to play axis first"). Hum 8-2=6+1=7 2-2=0+1=1 1/7x100=14%, 100-14=86%, no 80%. edit: To make it clear: you can't derive what people want to play from these numbers (no % of player preferring axis over allies everytime), you can only derive how many people actually play a faction (what I already did in this thread). I don't try to state anything, number are already there. The problem is coming from your method. Here we have 2 distinct populations and not just one as you state. 1)People that are actually playing a game 2)People willing to play a game Our interest cover people willing to play a game. We always have 100% of people looking a game. We have X% of this population looking for a game as Axis We have X% of this population looking for a game as Ally Many analyses from many players state that between 70-80% of the population is more interested to launch the game as Axis than Allied on a regular basis. Some people made some statement about the reason like the sensation of playing the bad boys. In fact They maybe right or not, it doesn't matter, the average is there, 70-80% of people willing to play COH2 in multiplayer ranking mode want to do it as Axis in first instance. Why do I say first instance? Because as many here mentioned before, looking for a game as Ally is a matter of second before being matched. So there are no 2nd instance for an ally 1st picker, or your are really fast in changing your mind and your faction or you made a mistake selecting an Allied faction but in fact since it also happens on the other side, the % or error is negligible. On the opposite side when you are looking for a game as Axis, you have plenty of time to change your mind before being matched, not only because you selected Axis by mistake but because people don't want to wait 5 minutes before being matched. So the population willing to play a game isn't that stubborn, people wants to play a game first. And from then, as Axis in 1st instance , which is not every time possible. So people just switches faction and get matched faster. From that point, they then leave the group of people looking for a game to the group of people playing the game. Are all Allied players in that group wanting to play Allied in 1st instance, my conclusion is no with a negligible % of error. Are all Axis players in that group wanting to play Axis in 1st instance, my conclusion is yes with here again a negligible % of error. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Spamm or skill ?27 Aug 2014, 08:35 AM I want to be Shia Lebeouf IRL! And the tank seems to be an E8... so cheated!! Some people over that forum will probably call the director to nerf it. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Jackson a discussion and compariosn27 Aug 2014, 08:30 AM Since one of the Jackson major weakness is the map itself, why not increasing the front armor and range of fire so it better survives poor design maps where it is almost impossible to flank. With that, it starts shooting earlier if it has visibility from a scoot unit and would force Axis players to learn to flank as well if they want to take it out without losing their own tanks In: COH2 Balance