|
Is the expectation that CoH2 will supersede CoH1, replacing it on a competitive level?
I find this to be a bit saddening. The classic vCoH meta game will be much missed. What's strange about it is that I feel like both games can and should coexist.
Thoughts? Who here will stop playing vCoH and switch to CoH2 almost or totally exclusively?
I think I will still want to play vCoH on occasion, although I want to be a decent player at CoH2 so I will need to devote more time to it than its predecessor. |
I think that when you have to play BO1 games in tournaments you need mirror matches, or the game will always be unfair and favour the player who picks faction first. An example of this is how all the BO1 games during SNF quali tourneys went, the high majority of them ended with the players picking faction first being also the winners.
Why isn't this a map or core gameplay imbalance? Would mirrors necessarily fix it (e.g. map A favors Allies north, but disadvantages allies south) |
|
Anybody know when the jan access hits? Probably not for a few days minimum since I'm sure the Relic guys are still on vacation. |
|
Actually I don't think map imbalance is a problem. Relic already said there will be symmetric maps; if the maps are imbalanced, the issue is with map imbalance, not mirrors. Tourney organizers should select maps which have good w/l ratios. |
|
It sounds like mirror matches are a bandage for a more fundamental injury; that is, the lack of confidence in map balance and game balance.
I prefer solutions to deeper problems rather than superficial bandages, but I must admit that Tycho has a good point when he suggests that Relic is incapable of properly balancing the game in this manner.
Symmetric competitive maps are less damaging to the eye than Tigers shooting other Tigers, though. |
I personally want mirrors since it makes organising tournaments much easier so we don't have to use the VP leader rule in the deciding matches and even use BO1 for the early rounds.
Now for those guys who don't want mirrors what fairer solutions can you come up with than what we currently have.
Why can't you just do what's done in chess? Coin toss picks side, players then alternate for best of three.
If one player happens to be not so good at Ostheer and is unlucky and gets them twice... tough! The best players are those who master both factions, not simply one. |
Wall of Text
+1
I just think mirrors are something which suit the preferences of players who want to play one faction, but it really is just a preference, without being objectively superior. |
@Feynmaniac
1. TvT is one of the favourite matchups in SC2. PvP nad ZvZ are hated, but it's due to how these factions are designed. I can imagine USvUS in vcoh as potentially interesting match-up, but what about Brits v Brits?
2. BS. I can imagine a lot of people who'd buy a game because of mirror matches, try the competitive scene and increase the competitive community. I imagine they're all called Fred.
3. Your math is bad and you should feel bad. There are 3 possible matchups in 1v1. I can imagine a lot of things for the sake of argument. In fact, I can imagine that you're wrong, and I'm right. Does that make it a fact?
My math is bad, and now I feel sad, although in my defense, counting was never my strong suit  .
I think that's the whole point though, there's a lot of unwarranted hyperbole in this thread; strong claims are made, people get mad, and the wheels keep spinning in the mud. My three points were all intended to be in that fashion.
EDIT: I just realized that one of the pro-mirror arguments is actually quite silly. One argument is that players have to master fewer factions. But really what you're mastering is match-ups; the argument is really that you master fewer match ups if there are mirrors. In fact, this is false; you have to master just as many either way. Without mirrors, it's SvO and OvS. With mirrors its SvS and SvO.
EDIT 2: Another thing I just realized is that this debate seems to be going nowhere and I should really just reserve judgment until I've tried them myself.
|
|
You cannot claim that CoH would be hurt by the lack of mirror matches; you can't argue that it makes the game worse! You can easily make an argument either way, what with the current free-wheeling evidence free discussion we're having.
Look, adding them or not adding them makes little to no difference; it's a very tiny effect on the competitive scene. I'm not going to be seriously sad if they are added, although I'll be annoyed. But stop lighting your hair on fire and shouting apocalypse over a minor non-feature which will have a minute impact on the game.
EDIT: While we're fantasizing about what might or might not happen with the addition of mirrors, how about I give it a shot? The competitive scene WILL (I have absolutely no doubt!) be damaged! Here's why:
1. Mirror matches suck. People hate watching them in SC2, why would they enjoy them here? They're just not interesting. People usually also hate playing them.
2. All of those lowly n00bs who won't buy the game because of mirrors (because there are a lot of people, who I've never met and have no evidence of their existence, who fit into this neatly defined category) won't ever have a shot at getting into the competitive scene, either as players or spectators, reducing the competitive community.
3. Balance will be even harder to fine tune, because now you have 4 match ups to balance. And don't mewl about how mirrors are always autobalanced, they aren't, since we're distinguishing between numerical balance (1:1 W/L ratio) and game balance. Imagine for sake of argument that the T-34 is underpowered in Axis V Allies, so they reduce its cost. But suppose the popular and standard strat is to go fast T3 Soviets in Sov vs. Sov so the game boils down now to who gets a T-34 base rush first. So more patches, more imba, and more lame match ups. |
14 months, 8 days, and 3 hours.
Like honestly do you think there's some mathematical formula we can use? All we can say is that mirror matches are good for competitive play, and if you don't take fucking 12azor's word for it then what more can we give you?
I don't like to take anybodies word for anything, if I can help it. Can't an argument be judged on its merits, as opposed to the credentials of who proposed it? What is 12azor's argument?
I feel like nobody read my post about chess. Competitive chess players must learn to play both sides of the game, why can't CoH players?
And no, I'm not suggesting it should be quantified but it just seems as if people believe mirrors will do x, y, or z, without really knowing what mirrors will actually do. I'm just afraid that they may unnecessarily detract from the atmosphere of the game while having a negligible impact, since I suspect (but don't know) that any effect they'll have will wash out with respect to balance problems, e-sports features, and community support. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
