Right, so who gets to call the shots on the balance then?
Relic severely limits the team on what they can do, but you say that the team is biased, but then again Relic decided to trust them to "fix" their game.
So how do we solve this? They won't fix it themselves so they need unbiased modders, but such people are hard to come by and I would volunteer but I will sure as hell not accept bullshit scopes and rushing of development be put on me and I think that many other modders will agree, feedback and suggestions yes, some compromises maybe, but flat out me putting my ass to hang for some ungrateful person, no way, I've done it enough to know that it's generally not worth it.
Apart from that they'll probably never accept me in a balance team but just putting it out there, I'm willing to fix the game for the sake of the loyal fanbase, but not under bullshit circumstances.
As far as I know, this was the same group of modders as the last patch, which was one of the best ever. The difference was that this patch didn't seem to have any of the feedback that the last one did.
I don't think that anyone is doubting the modders skill, but do think that they have preferred factions. If you doubt this, just go back and read their notes from the WPB:
https://community.companyofheroes.com/discussion/243341/winter-balance-preview-changelog#latest
According to them, nearly every useful allied unit was overperforming and every axis unit was underperforming. They didn't go quite that far this time, but almost.
There were a few good things done on this patch. They did a good job of making the super-units like JT's & Ele's counterable without overbuffing the counters.
However, this is ultimately on Relic as it is their game and they decided to implement this patch. |
We all make mistakes, it's only human and even if so I still blame Relic.
........
But perhaps that would show them how they were wrong in not giving full creative freedom to the community.
Making a mistake once is human, but repeating it.......
The balance team showed their bias in their first patch. Relic seemed to learn from it and the second patch was much better. Unfortunately, they let them "balance" the game again with even less oversight than the first, so they managed to kill two allied factions instead of one.
Giving them full creative freedom would probably allow them to make all three allied factions non-competitive.
I'd be fine if they balanced primarily for elite 1v1 players. I'm not one of those but I'd find a way to adapt. However, even the elite players think the last balance patch is terrible. Relic does own this, because they own the game and let the balance team "balance" by themselves.
PS - blaming scope is a joke when the basic infantry is so unbalanced. |
I have same numbers with okw and sovs as 4v4, i are in about 2000 rank on okw and 4500 on sovs.
Making soo more ez wins as sovs than okw that have crap gameplay with nothing on hands.
That interesting. Did you know that higher numbers aren't better when it comes to rankings? |
Before you read ....
I urge people to show support for this post on this thread if they care about the ladder map pool.
Thanks for posting the data on maps and win rate. It confirmed what I thought was happening when I played certain maps, such as LaGleize (when it was in) as OKW or Karkhov and both Semoisky's as USF.
I agree that using the veto rate would be helpful but do think the map pool is better than a year ago. Also,some of the problem maps didn't seem to be problems before the last imbalance patch.
|
I recently came back after a long hiatus from the game, and while I am admittedly quite bad right now, I have been finding it difficult to withstand OKW Volks blobs and have been generally just getting beaten with USF - which is fine. I'm not even here to talk about what I can do to get better or have someone tell me "l2p".
My question is: When I check the win percentages of 2 vs 2, 3 vs 3 and 4 vs 4; it appears Axis forces are winning quite handedly in every game mode. Specifically in 2 vs 2's it says Axis wins 0.76 while Allies are at 0.57 - is that a large discrepancy?
Basically, long story short, is the game currently balanced? Am I at a disadvantage playing as USF in team games?
It isn't currently well balanced. The "community balance" team decided they didn't need feedback on their last patch and created a balance patch that was as bad as their first, with the bias that some of us think they have.
That said, USF isn't that bad in team games. My random 4v4 rank as USF is mid-400's and I'll normally be the top 1 or 2 in damage and kills. The biggest problem that they have is when opposing players use Sturmpios aggressively, as those chew through anything. Before this patch, RE's in a building could hold out against Sturmpios, now they can't.
I don't know how the servers match people in 4v4's, but even by my ranking there is such a huge variation in skill level that win or lose is going to be random based on the skill level of the players. If you enjoy USF, then play it. If you're not having success, maybe watch one of your own replays plus some from better players. |
|
As a player whose preferred faction is USF, I liked the old Calliope because it could delete squads like Obers that regular USF infantry couldn't beat. I understand why the balance patch team nerfed it, but they took it from a unit that deleted squads to one that is intended as an area-denial unit, but doesn't do that either.
It could have worked as an area-denial unit if they did something like force infantry units to retreat if hit (like propaganda arty), but even then it would need a little cooldown reduction and a fuel cost reduction. |
|
For Ost, it would be nice if Relic changed one of the commanders so that it could call in or build a JP4 (borrowed from Okw but with just 3 levels of vet). Going Elefant commander on maps like Steppes or Red Ball every time is getting really stale. |
|
UKF would be helped a lot if the Boys AT infantry was just a 3rd upgrade option for infantry sections. It would also make more sense, instead of the outright nerfs that the last patch had. The AT sections in special weapons could be replace by command vehicle or something similar, maybe even a Valentine if they made the Valentine not suck. |
The data shows that even if there is statistical clustering, which there isnt, the data is very solid. I work in aerospace engineering and if I saw statistical data like this and I was looking for a signal outside of the noise none of this would qualify. In other words its consistent and SiphonX is correct that there is no signal suggesting that maps are preferred in any way.
Which makes perfect sense, there is no reason to be selecting any map more than another, except when people veto a map more, which means statistically its played less.
Given that reality this kind of data should be used to remove maps as players vote with their vetos. It could also be used other ways, but first it should be used to remove maps from ladder to make room for newcomers that could improve the pool.
This...all day long.
Vielsam is a really weird map that is 2 separate 2v2's, and not that enjoyable. Mud is too big, and gives to much advantage to teams with FRP's. Most people veto those. On the different 4v4 teams that I play with, one of the middle group of maps gets the other veto, depending on who speaks up the loudest. The top group rarely gets vetoes.
It is good to have a mix of maps. If you could veto down to one type of map, the game would get stale fast.
As far as the claims about clusters, I think that teams can get into a rhythm where the server gives them the same map several times in a row because the server is pseudo-random and they just ended up that way in the rotation. Also, if you flip a coin 100 times, chances are that you'll have at least one streak of 8 heads or tails in those tosses. Granted, there are more than two maps, but most people have also played a lot more than 100 games. |
As small of a sample size it would give, I think doing separate stats for the semi (or maybe quarter) finals and up would tell a lot more. Well, youd essentially have to throw out all of devm's games since hes basically boosting factions, but I think taking from games where the players are more closely matched in skill and taking play rates from the top players is just more meaningful.
Since you like talking statistics, answer a few simple questions for us newbies.
What type of data is wins and losses?
How do you determine if the sample size is large enough to make a conclusion? |
![Orange Zombie [ROK] flag](/images/replay/ostheer_flag.jpg)
Relic Entertainment
보드카 중대 
