Profile of scratchedpaintjob

Breaking news from relic hq!

The stacking bug is indeed not a bug but a feature intended to promote the freshly introduced "hero units" for the new DOW3. Stay tuned for more of these tweaks for the future!

(on a more serious note: the stacking is part of the tank, not the crew, so you can give your enemy a fully stacked sherman, for the sake of fairness)

hmm, its a nice idea, but i think its too complicated to be actually good. furthermore it would be hard to spot which counter you need, especially on lower graphics settings, which is a nogo.

That's a common bug, far before the patch.

i had the bug where two kinds of music play in the menu berfore, but not htis one, neither have i hear of it

Sounds like a minor bug because you can just disable the music for that one match.

There's a different problem, though. A much worse one - sometimes the "radar sound" when you're searching for a match doesn't stop after the loading begins. You're then stuck with the annoying sound for the rest of the game.

minor bug, but still a bug though

never had that with the radar. but it sounds very annoying

This is still pointless. Why should it be 60/40, frex? You're cherrypicking an entirely self-serving scenario. Not that it even matters, because whatever choice here doesn't justify giving any player victory on a plate that they did not themselves achieve.

well, that is the thing with a thought experiment. now answer the goddamn question: which button do you press?

How on earth can you pretend to be arguing in favour of competitiveness if you want some sort of hippy moral "justice" to determine who wins, instead of play of the game?

is it not competetive, when the better player wins? or in other words: is it not just, when the better player wins?

This is pure sophistry, because you're still trying to redefine a decision that LOSES a game as being "good", for which reason the result should be "fixed" to produce the "correct" outcome. That's sheer nonsense.

i defined a situation that WINS the game in a absurdely high amount of time (95%). how do you get that "losing" part???

Your ignoring outcomes where "the situation is not resolved". We're discussing game mechanics here, not only win loss resolutions. I've given you a perfectly good example of a mechanic that allows both.

have you ever watched poker? each time the players get a hand, a win percentage shows up, which changes depending on the open cards. im talking about that. and no, there is "situation is not resolved" after a round of coh2, you either won or lost. your example does have another option, therefore it is absolutely not accurate.

No, you can't. Because you "good" decision was to risk everything on one decision. To RISK everything on one decision. And that necessarily implies the possibility that you might lose.

having a player lose, although he made the right decisions is bad game design. or at least not competetive game design

My argument instead is that judging risk, stacking odds, etc, is part of what make a good player. There would be nothing wrong with a player look at that scenario and deciding that however tempting and juicy the bait, the 1-in-10 odds of losing everything are too bad. To have been willing to do it with another, expendable unit, if one had been available, but not the one they absolutely couldn't lose. I don't share your view that taking this chance should automatically be regarded as the best decision available. And therefore I do not share your view that this is a problem in need of fixing.

assuming you have no other option to kill the t34 (which we can do, its a hypothetical situation), it is the best decision:

95% *100 points + 5%*(-200)=85>0 (1tank=100points)

so overall the player not diving is the worse player. he wins 50% of the time, while the other wins 90% of the time. i honestly dont know how you can still think that not basediving is the better option....

so ultimately one question remains:
do you want a game where in ?10%? of the cases the clearly better player looses due to RNG?
if yes, no point to argue with you anymore, as you have clearly no intent to make a game competetive, which pRNG is trying to achieve