no T0 grens
Why are you so fixated on that? Its literally 10 seconds of difference for first 2 squads, then it gets equal, because manpower.
Its not enough time nor resource difference(ost gets more manpower at start) to get swarmed by anything. |
A 70-30 gap over almost 40 games is significant indeed. These games were played by the very best players on competitive maps with each side trying as hard as possible to win.
And this 70-30 gap existed despite Perimeter Overwatch being banned. So the Allies already had a handicap and couldn't even play to their full power.
No, its not.
How many of the games were 1 sided stomps?
How many of these game were wins under 100VP?
You ignore ALL the values that do not suit your biased narrative just to get confirmation bias. |
I think USF lacked a dominant meta to crutch on and has a huge weakness to the Ostheer sniper, so players were hesitant to pick it.
That's pretty much the only accurate conclusion we can draw from the games.
Sorry @OP at one point you need to accept the fact that thing that sucks most and makes you lose constantly is in front of your own keyboard. |
|
Conclusion:
Sample size is irrelevant for any accurate balance evaluation as no strategy or units were showing exceptional performance compared to alternatives we've seen - better players won. |
However I wish you the best of luck if you are going to pick defending the current comparison / status quo between the AVRE and ST as your hill to die on.
Well, my personal take on it is that KT, ele, JT, ISU and these two should NEVER be in the game in the first place, but they are and let's do whatever is needed to keep them niche options instead of wanting to buff them to meta level.
ST might be harder to use then AVRE, but we've seen games where it wrecks everything just as well as AVRE.
This is why I'm saying both are fine. |
AVRE is slightly too good but not that big of a deal considering the doctrine isn't that strong overall.
Sturmtiger is just too bad.
You can have ST and KT at once and ST will still just walk up and annihilate ATGs just fine.
Its not super amazing unit, but it is not bad. |
In automatch people get matched based on their elo rating so WR will always be close to 50%. Not sure how that says much about balance.
So...........
You just said if people are matched based on their skill, then games is balanced.
There is no Elo inflation due to bad players abusing any op unit or ability, which means the game is more or less balanced, which is what Sander confirmed with recent win ratios.
Allies won 5/5 games in the finals without Perimeter Overwatch. Many of the games were not even close either.
Error margain is considerably larger then 5 games you know.
5 games you're refering to indicates exclusively that these teams used allied rocket arty better(because finals were all about abusing brummbars and rocket arty). |
This thread is not about the T-70 vs. the Ostwind... honestly I tried to choose my words carefully because I knew someone would come out either saying "lulz shut up T70 is way better than Ostwind" or "lulz shut up Ostwind is way better than T70".
I'm only trying to make an example with T-70, a unit that is very strong and good value, but is nonetheless not seen as a "crutch" or "gimmick", because it is seen as an integral part of a balanced faction.
Actually, T-70 is a dictionary example of crutch unit.
Early game soviets do fine or are slightly behind, T-70 levels up early mid game and allows you to bounce back. |
BTW, with regards to "big picture" vision and balance. Firstly I'm surprised to hear Sander93 say that "true asymmetric" balance is impossible... I actually don't know if I agree with that. For one example, take the Brits before Sapper snare.
Brits were actually fine without a snare IMHO, because they had lots of other stuff: extra-accurate AT guns (with a fast-move special ability), very powerful (if manually-aimed) PIATs, the Sniper snare, the AEC snare, FF Tulips, and the doctrinal AT-Tommies (in emergency). A totally unique approach; it was totally different to regular snare-play, interesting, and hard to master.
And all of that was gradually nerfed to the ground or removed from the game.
You can't build a faction on crutch, then remove it because its too strong and expect it to stand on its own.
Unique solutions for the sake of uniqueness is pointless, especially if it means you are stripped of certain common tools only to have some gimmicky ones cranked up to 11.
OK, the Sniper snare, Tulips and the AT-Tommies definitely needed adjusments (sniper and Tulip too stong, AT-Tommies too weak). But I think that with some tuning the original vision could have worked.
History of balancing coh2 proves otherwise.
|
I know it's pedantic but Publisher =/= Studios. After the fiasco of the last BF5, we can't really meme the fault towards EA.
It's DICE, or DICE Sweden if you want cause DICE LA were mostly the ones who rescued BF4. Whether you like the genre or not, Apex Legends was a solid game and they had freedom to market and develop it however they like under the wing of EA.
Do you remember that amazing AAA title called Anthem?
Same with Bioware with Andromeda/Anthem. It's not bad EA fucking things up, is the upper management in charge of the "vision" who constantly fucked up.
Upper management doesn't have anything to do with missing text strings or missed mistakes on them and its often publishers who deal with localizations.
Actual quality of the game was not really the topic in question, just messing up on text. |
1
Relic Entertainment
