Thanks for proving my point.
Quite often its those who are resolutely and egocentrically convinced about their own moral quality, without ever questioning it, who make the worst trolls and most toxic opinionators.
The famous irony and hypocrisy of treating people you dont like by a different standard, because somehow in their minds they "deserve it", and therefore acting badly towards them is justified, even though that bad act is in and of itself toxic.
But who cares, cos Im good and moral, right?
That means I can behave wrongly and immorally myself towards people I dont like, right?
Nope.
Guess what. You are yourself the shouting kettle yourself, and the pot aint listening or guilty fornyour own behavior.
Here you are now, out of the blue, trying to start a fight by trolling, with an image no less.
Also, gj on ignoring the actual formative long post I made in this thread!
You are a funny one! Ipkai was simply pointing out the irony in your address on toxicity, when you are perhaps one of the most toxic members of this community. Sometimes "a picture is worth a thousand words" and "the truth hurts" as they say.
It's quite funny you of all people lecturing Ipkai on morals and community spirit, when the guy has done nothing but good things for this community, even for people like yourself.
The problem for yourself, and why nobody takes you seriously, is because, although you dress your posts up in good words and so many "strawmen", people can still read between the lines. They know exactly what you are, and exactly what you stand for.
Perhaps a look in the mirror is needed? |
Bringing up percentages is still irrelevant when talking about balance. It does not support your argument at all, because it says nothing about units, says nothing about strategy or design of factions, it's just pointing at numbers outside the game.
For example, If you are going to end your argument with "look at the percentage that proves it!" On a topic about whether or not Stuka rockets are overpowered then your argument is already invalid, because it has nothing to do with the rockets and it doesn't prove your point.
If you want to show that Axis are easier to play then say "It's easier to play because this..." instead of "nobody wants to play allies anymore, therefore axis is OP." That just doesn't make sense.
If you want to bring up percentages based from past experience, well from my past experienced when Katyushas and ISU152s were overperforming to a point to which it was very easy to win as allies a few patches ago. It was still easier to find a game as allies than it is axis because the percentages still is mostly Axis, so maybe the percentages doesn't mean that much when it comes to balance. Maybe the only way to make players percentages even up is to make Allies overpowered if you think balance is based on players percentage.
It was still easier winning as axis in team games, in average joe world. |
Bringing up percentages does NOT support your argument that Axis are OP. Bringing it up is just argument from ignorance. If you want to bring up why Axis are OP and Allies are UP talk about the units the game but NOT the auto match percentages. I am feel compelled to remove posts that just mentions automatch percentages.
Even though the percentage searching for axis games is indicative and symptomatic of the axis being op (especially in team games). You can dress it up anyway you like (people prefer the German units/the factions are more fun to play/etc), but it simply comes down to, that for the average joe (90% of the coh player base) the Axis provides a far easier way to win.
If you guys want a less convoluted discussion/argument, then I suggest that you open another forum for modes other than 1v1, as it stands, you have guys discussing from two or more very different viewpoints in every single topic, about 2 (or more) entirely different games. Those games being 1v1 and other modes.
You can talk about single units all day long, but it's not really going to effect the over all problem as I described above. A single unit being OP/UP is merely a symptom of the over arching OP'ness of the Axis factions or the difficulty of playing the Allied factions for the average joe. |
|
Milka, with all due respect, it doesn't matter what you think is an appropriate response to the allegations.
SEGA will have their own code of conduct, that Brad will be judged by. |
Thread: 4v415 Sep 2014, 01:36 AM
If they took out 4v4 this game would be dead overnight. The majority of players Large team game players and relic needs to start making the balance changes that the mode deserves.
Oh I totally agree with you.
But as it stands, they may as well take it out. It's just a bad advertisement for their game, as it's so unbalanced. I don't think they have any intention of balancing team games, considering they can't even balance 1v1, and seem to have little understanding of their own core game mechanics. Anything other than 1v1 is a big mess, though it's not so noticeable in 2v2 scenarios.
This is coming from a guy who enjoys team games a lot more than 1v1. |
Yes, it's fair because the faction was designed like that.
Issues related with that are a question of balance, but 5-vet levels are fine.
I don't see why "because the faction was made like that" makes it fair. The T70 when it originally came out wasn't fair, yet that was how it was designed. The same could be said about the tiger ace, when it 1st came out.
I get there might be some balance issues with certain vet abilities, but, the OKW units will always have 2 more abilities on their vet 5 units then any other factions, regardless if they are minor, major, balanced or not.
As far as I understand, when the faction was designed, income was severely hard to come by, or you had to take big risks to get it. This is no longer the case. Therefore, does their current reduced income rate, warrant 5 veterancy levels when you consider:
Strength of infantry of the faction
Strength of vehicles/tanks
population costs when compared to other factions
low tech costs
free healing/repair/turret-AA bays |
Thread: 4v414 Sep 2014, 23:25 PM
I don't think they really care about team games buddy. TBH, they should just take 3v3 and 4v4 out of the game altogether and maybe not advertise the game as a multi player game next time...
My advice to you is play 2v2 (though this mode still heavily favours axis teams) or 1v1, or find another game to play that is balanced for such big teams. I would recommend wargame for such personally, though it's not nearly as action packed. |
OKW cannot attain the numbers that the other factions can in terms of vehicles due to only having 2/3 the fuel.They also have a very limited selection of infantry and specialized vehicles.
Ok, so their vehicles should (maybe) be able to attain Vet 5, however, their vehicles are also very good, and their AT infantry is second to none, which kind of negates the need for more vehicles.
I'm not entirely sure the bolded part of your argument is entirely true... |
|
Hi all.
I've been thinking about this a fair bit, and I was wondering why only the OKW are able to attain 5 levels of vet. If I get a rifle, script or gren to vet 3, why should I not be rewarded with another 2 levels of vet?
What makes the OKW a special case that they should be able to attain those levels? Are they far harder to play, so it's a special reward for those that micro their units well, or is it a flawed and unfair game mechanic for one faction?
If anybody has the time, could you list the vet reward for ranks 4 and 5 for the OKW units? I'm not sure where to get those stats.
Please discuss why or why not the OKW should be able to attain 5 levels of vet.
EDIT: If you vote, please add why or why not the OKW should be able to get vet 5. |
|
There are many maps, in many modes that are simply not suitable to be there.
It's just laziness on relics behalf. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
