Profile of Bulgakov

sorry but most balance issues can easily be resolved by l2p

That's true but it's an unpleasant way to say it. I mean you have a choice: give a constructive answer like "Have you tried X, Y, Z?", give no answer or troll them with "L2P issue, derp".



I agree with OP. Just writing "L2P" is essentially pointless and will only lead to flame wars and trolling.

Thanks for your reply mate, I wasn´t dsregarding to what pro players are saying here, I was just quoting bladlord because I think his argument was wrong (indeed, I don´t think bradlord is top10 player so why you Think that I automatically disregard whatever a top player says????).

Of course, the wrong one here could be myself, but I was just explaining my opinion.

But I think my analogy is not so bad.....A top player skills are a mix of APM, ability to adapt to enemy tactics and RNG outcomes, knowledge about maps and units, and a bunch more of them. You can be the best one in APM department, the best one adapting to what happens in the battlefield and being not so good at others areas (example: Alonso is the best F1 driver but he is not the fastest one at one lap, nor the best one setting up the car, nor the best one......) So, being the fastest one don´t imply you are the best one setting up the car for each track.

I think here is the same, generally top players are the ones with better knolegde of the game and thus, the ones with more capabilities to balance this game, buuuut this is not always the case, and that is the only thing I was trying to say....I hope now, you can see my point, even if you disagreee with me.

In the same way, I don´t agree with those that discard other´s opinions just becasue they are 4v4 players or they aren´t top100 at any faction-game mode....most of the time, it is true that 4v4 players are less skilled and has less knowledge about this game, but this is not a reason to automatically discard their opinions.....sometimes, a 4v4 player can find a solution for a balance problem, why not???

why shouldn´t they participate in this forum jsut becasue you are a better player and becasue you play 1v1 (the "pro" mode") ????????


Regards,

Nice reply, thanks.

I agree with you on a couple of things. Nobody should be automatically disregarded because they play at a lower level. The game has to be fun for everyone. And yes, there must be times when 3v3+ players spot a weakness in the game that could be fixed to improve the game for everyone.

Also, just being a top-20 player doesn't automatically make you right. I agree with you there too.


All I was saying is that when the top players take the time to think things through and write out a text on what they think, people should give it more time and more credit. You'll see in this thread a lot of people automatically disregarding what the top players have said because it clashes with their opinion. They haven't even taken the time to think it over or analyse.


Lastly about your F1 analogy:

If you were a team manager and there were two people you could choose from to organize setting up the car, who would you choose:
1. Alonso, a driver who lives and breathes the sport and who spends time outside of driving analysing the sport and his performance and the car's performance.

2. The guy who occasionally drives but not competitively.


Essentially what the manager needs is a team comprised of the driver, pitstop mechanics, technicians, etc. But in the abscence of that, who would you choose? I;d go with Alonso. He might be wrong but the statistical chance the he'd be right is much higher.

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that more aggressive factions do better in the hands of highly skilled players. But you yourself say that balance is in a good place, but then then talk about nerfing heavily factio dependent units like maxim and rifles. How do you plan on doing that without ruining balance. Every single unit's effectiveness in USF depends on rifles, and we have already seen what happened when they had weaker vet and maxim is the only reliable way to deal with infantry other then doctrinal elite infantry. Nerf these things and balance will crumble.

USF in particular would need to be rebuilt from the ground up to make them less reliant on rifles. And we are going to do all this for what? So that a couple of dozen players can have a perfectly even winrate against each other.

Besides the vast majority of vindicares points are only really about ostheer (who is actually doing the best in 1v1 overall). OKW has a really good early game and light vehicles. Ostheers early game would mostly be fixed with making the 222 a little beefier.

I don't know how to do it. I'm hoping the pros come up with a way. But insulting them and derailing the thread is not going to help that.



I agree about Ostheer. OKW is strong now, I don't think they need any buffs.


I would like to see less rifle blobs with double BARs. Or at least toned-down rifle blobs with BARs.

And change demos so they have a timer!!!1! Whoever saw Momo4sho's game vs Paula's Soviets will understand. It's so retarded.

Of course they should keep 2 of them but for the cost of lower efficiency, like cut DPS for 40%.

Yeah I think you're right. Well, maybe not 40% but a nerf would probably improve gameplay.

I will give you small comparasion.

There are football managers who have never played football, or played it very bad.
Yet they see things and know many issues, and became world class specialist without playing football on the top level.

Just sayin'

What you say is true. There are also 1 billion guys who sit at home shouting at their TV, complaining about the managers' decisions.


The good managers, unlike some people on this site, spend a lot of time watching the game, analysing and striving to understand. Most people here are like the 1 billion, shouting nonsense at their TV screen.

Just sayin'...