Any idea that a game can be balanced from "the top", i.e. looking only at how the top 1% of players interact with the game, and using this knowledge to modify the game in a way that meaningfully affects everybody, is complete and utter bullshit.
"OMG Dpfarce, post your sources!!"
No, I'm not going to post sources. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to support your argument
posting sources that state your argument for you = strawman appeal to authority
posting sources that provide statistics, facts, or supporting arguments upon which your argument lies = good history, referencing, academic work
E.g. Saying that "The French Revolution was caused by popular discontent" then citing John Merriman's book, in which he says those exact words = strawman argument.
Saying that "Revolution X is caused by popular discontent, because it is very similar to the French Revolution" then citing John Merriman's work on the French Revolution when you wish to compare events between the two revolution = proper use of references. YOUR ARGUMENT is being supported by an expert's opinion, i.e. his opinion being true adds weight to your argument, but his opinion being false doesnt automatically nullify your argument. YOUR ARGUMENT is not the same as the expert's opinion; John Merriman never drew a link between the French Revolution and Revolution X, I'm the historian who wishes to make this claim.
99% of the arguments in this thread sound like this.
Riot games/Blizzard/Ubihard/etc balances to the top 1%, therefore all companies should balance to the top1%
The American Civil War was caused by a disagreement about slavery, therefore all civil wars are caused by disagreements about slavery.
This is complete strawmanning and appealing to authority, with absolutely no actual evidence given to support your facts.
There are many games in the world where the simple thought of balancing something to the top 1% would make absolutely no sense at all.
Can you balance soccer/football to only the world cup?
- It's too easy to kick a penalty in world cup level football, so let's make the goal box smaller for everyone.
Can you balance baseball only to the superbowl?
- It's too hard to hit a home run in the superbowl, so let's make the field smaller.
None of this even makes any sense - unless you make two sets of rules, any balance changes you make will have an affect on all players. (Which is why 99% of sports have multiple rule sets to cater for skill level, age, physical development, etc)
These are also terrible metrics by which to compare coh2. While both teams are identical in soccer, and in baseball, both teams have a turn at striking and pitching, in coh2 one team must be allies, and one team must be axis.
- Think of this like in baseball, where one team is only allowed to pitch for the whole game, and whehter they win or not is depepdant purely on how few runs they concede.
- This will of course have a completely different balance mechanic than regular baseball, where things like the size of the field, the distance between the pitcher/hitter don't really matter as much, because it affects both teams equally.
Our closest point of comparison in the e-sports world is probably league of legends. we are similar, in that both teams can't be axis, and both teams can't have a Master Yi.
A look at league of legends statistics shows there are serious differences in win-rates between different tiers of players.
For example:
The highest win-rate champion in Bronze Tier (lowest) is Ahri. Over 50% of players are in bronze tier.
The highest win-rate champion in Diamond Tier is Karthus. About 250 players per region (NA/EU/OCE/etc) can be in diamond tier (i.e. 0.0X%)
Karthus doesn't even show up on the bronze tier win% chart, nor does ahri show up on the diamond tier win% chart. Ahri does, however, make some entries in some of the other charts, just not at position #1
"Right," said Morello, who doesn't actually even have a college degree yet helped start one of the most successful startups of all time. "We must buff Ahri."
"Are you sure?" said Phreak, who probably has a degree in something like Library Studies but is now lead champion designer of one of the most successful games of all time. "Ahri has a 55% win rate in Bronze tier, and 50% of our players are bronze!"
Morello adjusted his glasses. "No, Phreak. We don't give two fucks about them. Balance to the top 0.0x%"
This sounds completely absurd, and is a terrible way to balance a video game.
Overall % data like provided in this thread is a great place to start. However, saying "axis has a 90% win rate in 4v4s" is like saying "champions with blue hair have a 90% win rate in Diamond Tier" - there is absolutely nothing obliging players to play all champions with blue hair equally. IN coh2, while CAS may be propping up the OST win rate, this does not necessarily mean the faction is overpowered, anymore than just because Vi (blue hair champion) has a 90% win rate, we should nerf Irelia (who also has blue hair).
Win% data allows us a broad window into the general vacinity that a problem lies in (OST 4v4). We need to look closer, however, to identify exactly what the problems are (CAS doctrine? Tiger Ace?)
tl;dr
this thread is filled with people who are appealing to authority by citing sources like a 49/100 first year history student instead of giving proper arguments as to the how the game could be balanced based on the data available. I, on the other hand, have presented a coherent argument that doesn't rely on opinions from those of authority, instead of statistics and logic, and have offered a suggestion about how we can use this data to balance the game, and which pitfalls to be aware of.
You as a player are what would be called a Silver tier player in CSGO. The balance update that was done in 2013 that affected recoil negatively affected silver tier, because now it is harder for them to spray and aim every single gun, and the better players that understand the deeper mechanics of movement in positioning in CSGO will trash the silver players easily. This is literally the same thing in CoH, when things like the 120mm crutch mortar got nerfed, or the Tiger Ace, and people cried on the forums since they could no longer abuse it.
Do you think CS is a good example to take when explaining CoH2? I think you should look at a game like LoL. And in LoL that's not how they balance
You know Von said himself that it was a "don't try this at home kids" thing right? Like Iv won games were my only vehicles were Sturmtiger's doesn't mean the ST is OP.
This thread is quite entertaining. By all the complaining here you'd think COH1 was unplayable because people actually had to flank. There was no smoke from the gods, or oorah on non doc inf, or flamer rifleman, or any of that crap. Yes if you blob 4 rifles into 1 MG your 4 rifles SHOULD NOT win the engagement. Spread out 4 rifles and flank and you will win easily. Just because your 4 rifles cost 5X more than 1 MG doesnt mean squat. If you play like a scrub you should get whooped like one and obviously too many scrubs got used to climbing the ladders with a crutch under both arms.
Dont forget that maps were more open. In CoH 2 maps are narrower and even Jesulin said he has issues on some maps. Yeah, he needs to l2p too
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
