Profile of kafrion

Your post makes no sense. Why would i need 2 or even 4 matches? If mirrors are available, each side can pick the faction they want without being forced to play a specific faction as it is the case without mirrors. Thus, we only need 1 match. Just like it is done for any other game with mirror maatches available.

The rest of your post is invalid as well, because like CombatMuffin pointed out, you're assuming people don't like to watch mirror matches. This is a subjective oppinion.

A tournamant must have a symmetry of some sorts in map and factions terms . Tournaments should determine the best overall player and that means ability to play all the given factions not just one which means that if you get to play wehr vs wehr on langre you should then play as am vs am on langre otherwise the result might not depict the truth and that is your argument is it not , exploit the competitive potential to the full you said , well if we get the wrong results we dont , that is why you need 2 matches , and if the map is not symmetrical like angoville then you need to reverse positions and do the other mirror match as well . The last bit about the one match is completely wrong , in any case of comparative testing to determine something , you always get the maximum possible number of samples to reduce the effect of random or unknown parameters and a match of coh is no exception . On the second scale of your reply i have already answered to Combatmuffin as objectively as it is possible when taste comes in the way . Also you have not answered my last question how is it that we have the same names in coh tournaments at the top if the system used is unfair or not balanced , check out every commentators or experts opinion they will tell you that the winners deserved to be winners .

If we want e-sport to be a bigger part in COH2 than in COH1, then yes. Because mirror matches make the organization of tournaments and other competition a LOT easier.

At the moment you are somewhat forced to do a Best of 3 format. The first 2 games are necessary to define a parameter (VP lead) which then decides, who has the unfair advantage in game 3.
Not only is this unfair in itself, but best of 3 matches are long! This makes it a lot more time consuming not only to play such tournaments, but also to organize them, because any bigger event expands over more than one day.
Leaques are almost impossible, cause they require a lot of different players to find an overlapping timewindow to play their games.
With mirror matches, best-of-1 games become totally fair. This lets us get rid of an articifial parameter (VP lead), and allows us to have more competition.

To implement mirrors into tournaments, they already have to be part of automatch, which is where the metagame evolves and strategies are developed. It goes hand in thand.
Put authenticity into singleplayer/custom games, but let the competitive part use its full potential!


Now there will be some people saying: "There is only a small bunch playing in tournaments, blablabla. Mirrors ruin it for everyone else, blablabla". But, this is the wrong perspective.
Events like Sunday Night Fights have shown how much of a followership is connected to such competitive events! All these people are involved, too. And the more of these events, the more visible COH2 will be, so it will grow.
You probably don't know how many new players the SNF shows brought to COH1. They jumped over it on the twitch.tv main page and wanted to play it themself. They post in the chat "what is this game called, it looks awesome". Additionally to advertising, this is how games get big!

while if you base a tournament on mirror matches except it will be a failure in esports measuring terms because significant portion of the fans wont watch it , it will require 1 match for the wehrmacht and one for the soviets and unless its played on a chessboard to ensure no map side favoring it will require 4 games istead of 3 , this is not shooting yourself in the foot its shooting yourself in the head with a bazooka or a panzerschreck to ensure you wont miss the hit . And even if you need 2 matches then you will need a third in case of a tie . And about the unfair conditions you discribe , i have watched a ton of tournaments , the fact that we have 4-6 players dominating them on a very consistent basis each year (sometimes they change because some of them stop ) proves that the ones who are the best end up in the top spots .

Hitchcock is a director not a film Which one did you saw?

Its the story of making psycho centered around hitchcock and his wife

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rQuRLERl6A

Unfortunately I'm not seeing these intel bulletins working out too well, probably the least desirable aspect of Coh2 that I've heard. If there really is to be something like 10% extra bonus damage resistance in cover, then that's a no-brainer upgrade. Anything that flatly boosts a fundamental mechanic is always going to be a no brainer, and the only way these things are gonna work out competetively long term is if the intel bulletins are heavily nuanced; rather than 10% bonus cover, make it 5% extra damage when flanking behind grenadiers (for example).

The problem is, the dev in the interview claims that a worse player with all the upgrades will still be beaten by a naturally better player who just bought the game. OK, fair point- but what about when two equally skilled players face off? What if one player has a really powerful combination of upgrades that work in synergy, lets say 10% bonus to cover, 10% bonus to rifle reload and 10% bonus to stationary accuracy. You now have one player who, even in a mirror match, is gonna backhand his opponent into next week with flatly superior units simply due to the money he's spent or the time he's spent playing.

The one way that they could bring this back from the brink is by disabling such things in automatch. For basic matches, comp stomps and so on (which in turn is the majority of players anyway) then let em knock themselves out with all kinds of crazy upgrades and stuff, fine tuned to their liking. But 1v1 laddering shouldn't be about out of game customization imo.

I can see the logic behind what you said but consider the following scenario , lets say that someone goes for the 3 inf bulletin upgrade , if that is visible prior to the match then he makes it incredibly clear that he will go for lets say conmscript/rifle spam , to what you can respond by going early acs and/or support weapons and picking a commander specialized in early ai and bylletins that will help your tanks , you can find a small analogy in a player who goes early p4 and locks it in your base against your 4 rifles 3 flamers granted that this could easily fail since its based on one unit . If however it is not visible then it will take a lot of experience and skill in recognizing the intells elected and tweaking your army appropriately if your bulletins are completely unrelated with countering the given strat . Imo relic are going to make the bulletins effective in matches of same skill otherwise they would not do it at all . But cheer up customization means more characterfull and beautifull army and as any seasoned wargamer can tell you a well painted army allways fights better

Okay i got the idea to make this thread from 2 matches i recently had and since most signs show that tanks will be more effective in coh2 i think it would be usefull to discuss it since its almost sure it will come up at some point . For "academic" reasons i will first give you the examples , in the first 2 upgunned shermans 1 of em vte2 failed to take down an immobilized 1/3 health vetless panther using only frontal shots ( i could not flank it was in a tight spot ) , in the second 2 unvetted stugs forced away head on an unapgrated vetless pershing . The relative costs are 1020 mp 230 fuel for shermans , 1000mp/2 for panthers ulternatively 640mp 110 , 800mp +8cps for pershing and 640mo + 100 fuel for the stugs . I think we can all think of an example in coh that a well microed hard counter ate for breakfast a large number of medium counters with few examples of the opposite ( not talking about soft counters )

The question that lies before us is should medium in this case vs hard counter units outcome be reliant on micro or ammount of resources invested or rather a combination of both (stickey rear hits plus 2 shermans seems a bit excessive for one panther considering resources invested in both medium and soft counters also i count bulletins as resources ) and where should we put the golden balance , how effective should the vet and the upgrades be , in order to avoid going towards starcraft or some other rts. In order to help your thought process imagine the same examples with a soviet heavy tank , t34s and p4s and panthers ( here is hoping we ll see more of them p4s instead of stug4 eclipsing them ) Same question goes for infantry , should ftfl or some ability of the same magnitude and cost exist in coh2 ?

Granted that we havent seen the game yet , i do think the question to be substancially theoretical on the subject of who should determine the outcome of asymetrical warfare resources or micro ??

To give you my opinion i would like a 60/40 +/-10 analogy for the nondoctrinal units and differentiated in different arms (inf tanks etc ) as i think it would make the game more tactical and add more game reading and decision making than multitasking plus it would add more tactical depth on bulletin and commander choice . It goes without saying that i also like that analogy altered on very heavy doctinal units and always dependent on how many cps you need , abilities you might succrifice and resources cost you are willing to pay in order to get the unit in question , if you wish to counter them with nondoctrinal units . Allthough the best way to do it is for each unit of the same category alone and in synergy with others versus varius combinations , at a time , using diagramms of cost damage , mobility environment etc etc, dont know how possible ir would be though .

In conclusio , it seems to be a delicate and complicated matter really and its sure the developers will need our help on that .