Profile of Inverse

Which is why the replay system exists, watching someone like Sib go over your replays and discuss how you could have done things differently or suggest things to you that you may have missed.

The biggest difference between people of rank levels is micro ability (in 1's) and in team games the biggest difference between differently ranked AT's is a combination of each players skill and their ability to communicate.

But again, the disconnect between theory and application is enormous. I could look at your replay and tell you every little thing you did wrong and how to correct it, but that's not going to magically make you a better player, and it's not magically going to give you all this knowledge about the game either.

There's an amazing moment of clarity that occurs when you finally come to understand the game entirely, and it's not something you can explain or impart on others with a few words. It takes serious effort and serious commitment, and it makes a serious difference in how you perceive the game. It's not really something you can understand until you've experienced it, but it's the main reason why I shut the fuck up about specific technical matters regarding all but two of the competitive activities I've taken part in. The knowledge gap between experts and everyone else in any skill-based field is astonishing.

That's pretty much the breakdown of every community of every competitive game in existence.

And playtime definitely matters at the top of the ladder, but not really anywhere else.

In broad strokes yes, it means something. There is a very, very good chance that a rank 100 player is better than a rank 1000 player. On the other hand, there is a far lesser chance that a rank 10 player is better than a rank 100 player. The rank 10 player is still probably better, but at the tops of ladders it's generally more about how many games you play and less about your raw talent, especially in a game like CoH2 where the playerbase is tiny and there's a very small chance of a good player meeting someone as good as or better than him in an automatch game.

Unfortunately, the truth, regardless of rankings or ladders or whatever, is that the vast majority of players really have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to the nuances of balance. When you're at a level where it's hard to differentiate between player error and balance flaws, your opinion is going to be less relevant than that of a player who is at a level where those issues actually affect games more heavily, and where players have less potential to be upwardly mobile skill-wise.

Players with a greater understanding of the game, and who therefore have achieved greater success against others, are necessarily going to be listened to most closely than players with less knowledge and less success. That's just a fact of life. As for ladders, while they don't provide a complete picture of player skill, they are definitely useful so long as you have an understanding of their shortcomings and know what they represent.

Maphacking is always going to be an issue in client-based games like RTS, but in reality the frequency of maphacking tends to be extremely low, and high-level play can often resemble maphacking to less skilled or less experienced players. I played CoH1 for many thousands of games and I honestly can't remember a single instance where I suspected an opponent of maphacking.

Note as well that battle servers make hack detection a lot easier for Relic. Many hacks leave telltales or traceable signatures in replays or the commands that are sent to the battle servers, which can be detected by Relic. A number of maphackers were caught using replay analysis tools developed by Relic in CoH1, and a few months after CoH2's battle servers went online Relic announced they had banned a number of accounts for maphacking, likely thanks to the detection methods mentioned above.

In summary, it's possible, but you're likely overreacting.

A funny aside from the past, Snej was one of the CoH1 players who was banned when Relic's replay analysis found evidence of hacking in this replay he posted himself vs. DrHorse: http://www.gamereplays.org/companyofheroes/replays.php?game=25&show=details&id=72933

Given the communities current understanding this change could:

• Address the call in Meta.
  
• Add a new dimension to the game, you must not just micro manage your armies but craft your doctrines.
  
• Fix the outstanding war spoils issues.
  
• Provide Relic the opportunity to release little bits of DLC content into the game.
  
• Prevent unit abuse by requiring repair cycles or down town which will encourage other units to be used instead.
  
• Tie in well with that Metamap thing I've seen floating around.
  

The only downside I see to this could be:

• Players can't use there same units over and over again without maintenance.
  
• The small population that plays in tournaments gets mad because of the statement above.
  
• Balancing, but this is always a issue.
  

Fuck we are all doomed. Better stop playing CoH2 and post more often on the forums.

How will it magically fix the metagame? All it'll do is give players who pay for supply more freedom to use the units and items they want. CoH2's metagame problems are a consequence of the game's design, not its economic model. It won't "prevent abuse" (which is pretty strange and vague wording to begin with) because, again, players who are willing to pay won't be affected at all. Instead it will split the community into those willing to pay in order to use the best units all the time and those not willing to pay and instead being forced to use different, weaker units artificially thanks to the game's business model. I also don't see how this system would integrate with the metamap idea, especially since Relic has made statements regarding their vision of that system that doesn't mesh with economics in any perceptible way, aside from maybe giving drops.

What it will do is improve the drop system, perhaps let players purchase some otherwise paywalled content with supply, and give Relic more opportunities to monetize their game. All of this comes at the cost of giving players who are willing to spend money on item maintenance a very noticeable in-game advantage. That's a pretty huge step down the rabbit hole for a game that is first and foremost about competition, be it in custom games, in automatch, or in tournaments.

Companies like Valve and Blizzard have shown that there are gameplay-neutral ways to monetize your games over long periods of time. Giving players a paid-for advantage in a multiplayer game is, in my humble opinion, inexcusable.