Profile of spam.r33k

The point is that you do not know a lot about balance OR fail to put it in practice.

Your rank proves it .

Plz stay out of balance thread from now on.

http://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/steamid/76561197968413717

is that your card? if so try harder next time

not a single 1v1 in a game, which, according to it devs, is focused on 1v1 balance. 1 game as soviet none as ost. so what do you know about balance?


Edit:
to clarify: i do not agree with what alex says. i just dont like your hypocrisy

[...]
And I came back to the game 2,5 month ago after 4-5 month afk if i'm remember good and i had not finish my depression

( I was in depression because i didn't know really what to do in my life Kappa, or for be more exact, the path to choose for my dream )

I'm in university about History finally Kappa
[...]

wait. mocking a depressed person wouldnt be fun, would it? damn you, quentin, if youre making this up. ill stop for now, but one last jest, if i may: you do know that narcissists often suffer from depression, dont you?

Because the game is actually pretty balanced right now - especially compared to where we are post-WFA relative to where we were the same time after release - but people won't shut up about it until they are playing mirror factions on featureless plains



Because when most people talk about balance they talk about 1v1 balance because that is all that matters despite the fact that it is the least important of all game modes (Team Games and Comp Stomp leave it for dust).

you and your hate for 1v1s

in fact its the only game mode that could attract the competitive crowd (both players and viewers). just take a look at starcraft I+II and warcraft III, not a single fuck given about teamgames (at best there are some niche tourneys) in those games either and theyve been the biggest competitive RTSs so far. so yes 1v1 balance is important for the game to become a competitive success

Yep - shame that most people in this community find sh!t stirring on a forum more fun than the actual game these days.

Still - if you're happy - then that's all that matters.

A fool and their money as they say...

your initial post was nothing but shit stirring

talking of fools: "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain

thx for removing my doubts, though

if you release ToWs and stuff like that as DLC, please, go ahead. But releasing stuff that directly affects multiplayer that is locked behind a paywall (and i'm not talking about the stand-alone addons) imho is not okay. and with bulletins i'm not of your opinion that they have no effect, especially when stacked. just because there are a lot of literally worthless bulletins does not mean that the other ones or potentially new ones, that might get released when they're being sold for money might not be strong enough to sway games. sure, individual skill will still have more impact on the game, but claiming they have no effect is not taking into account all the possibilities. as for commanders, we had multiple examples over the course of coh2 where we could witness first hand that newly released commanders were literally pay to win, since you paid for the commander and given a similar strength opponent could almost guarantee a win simply by selecting the commander.

numbers dont need our opinions. take conscripts. +3% accuracy (arguably one of the best bulletins overall) actually raises their accuracy bya tad more than 0.01 at near/mid. thats 1 additional shot out of 100 that hits. conscripts need 230+ seconds to shot 100 times (at near. at far its ~600 seconds with less accuracy gain from the bulletin [+0.087]). so 1 extra hit (make that 3.xx with stacked bulletins) every 4 minutes (only at near range!) might sway games? (source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApmrrrPr20ncdGF4VURuYjVGZXlIN3ptbV8tbzRzN0E&usp=drive_web#gid=0)

Lots of good points here, and I agree that the system would probably be fine if they excluded commanders. But I think calling people cheap or entitled or whatever is a bit of a cop-out, especially if you're not fully aware of the history of CoH2.

This is a game that the community was promised would never have microtransaction DLC that affected gameplay, by multiple developers. Then a few months after release they started putting out paid commanders with new units and abilities. Now there are hints of a system that sounds extremely similar to one implemented in a previous game by the same studio, which in that game was there solely to nickle and dime players who wanted to use the best units and abilities for extended periods of time. You don't have to be cheap or entitled to take issue with that, or to be concerned about it given the company's track record.

There's a lot of references to microtransaction models done right in this thread, and people are using those examples as justification for this sort of system. The problem is, none of those successful microtransaction-based games use a system even remotely close to the durability system described here. Imagine if Dota 2 items disappeared after 50 games, or you had to pay to repair your CSGO knife after 50 kills. Those games wouldn't be nearly as popular as they are now if their items degraded over time.

Successful microtransaction games exist, and they're awesome. But they're successful because they're constantly releasing quality content that people want to buy. They're not trying to squeeze a few extra dollars out of dedicated players by essentially punishing them for using their items. They're constantly moving forward with new content, not taxing the content that's already been released.

If Relic does a free-to-play CoH2 right, it's going to be an incredible boon to the game and its community. But if they do it wrong, the game could just as easily end up like CoHO. This microtransaction model in particular is, in my opinion, the wrong direction to take the franchise in. Instead of taxing existing content, they need to be focused on constantly releasing quality new content that makes people want to spend their money. Unless durability is limited to dropped skins and decals only, it's going to discourage people from actively seeking out and purchasing additional content. And if durability is in fact limited to dropped skins and decals, then what exactly is the point of the system? Why even bother adding it when all you're going to be doing is taking a few dropped items away from players who probably wouldn't have spent a dime on microtransactions in the first place? No matter how you slice it, it just doesn't seem like a very good idea to me.

im fully aware of the history. so is relic. recieving massive backlash for dlc commanders has basically stopped further releases (there where like 6 more commanders in addition to not one step back and encirclement in the beta that where barely mentioned outside of it). coho was abandoned. assuming that relic wont learn from this is rather ignorant

anyways this is rather pointless. i dont see any benefit in going up in arms, before there has been any statement from relic on how this is going to work. some make a point about doing this before information is released to discourage what they deem improper economic decisions. i disagree. can we leave it at that?