@salvasc said:
The word most played in dow 1 was "IMBA" ... There were always balance problems, especially as the expansions arrived.
That's the most funny thing, most of those guys didn't even play dow1 without mods ever and now pretend it's the best game ever made. Don't get me wrong. It was a super cool game. But not the perfection that the dow3 haters make it to be.
I come from the old school of Dow vanilla and the initial problems were the spiders vs the orks, the SPAM of the space marines, the Rush of the scouts to the heretics of Chaos and many other things ... Then came the imperial guard and his turret rush and SPAM guards with plasma or Chimeras was an odyssey. Then came the necrons with their unbalanced units and the Tau more unbalanced still but with shots from much farther ... and finally Soulstorm that was a real nonsense.
In short, Dow did not start well did not end up being better ... It was a great game, but not the best and had many balance faults ... Lots.
@Stoner said: @Katitof
Can I ask how many hours you spent in PvP overall?
Why does it matter? People have criticism of the game without even playing it, and we strive to defend their right to say it - even if we disagree with what they say.
Maybe leave the attempted personal slights out of a debate about balance?
Playing something can breed a familiarity, even an expertise, with the game. But you can also spend hours playing something and not become skilled at it. It's a false correlation. People are proven right by dint of their insight being accurate overall, their insight isn't automatically proven right because they had enough hours in PvP to satisfy your curiosity
Opinion post.
Of course experience matters. If you have someone who spends 99% of the their free time telling other people how to play and 0.01% of the time actually playing the game, how are you not going to take that into consideration and use that as valid criticism of their potential lack in perspective in your arguments?
It is not unreasonable to assume that these types people could be representative of portion of the population who are neurotic and have mental problems and are fulfilling their social needs on forums like this because nobody can stand them IRL. You can save time dealing with these types by pointing out their obvious flaws and ignoring them rather than address their non-stop heavy mental gymnastics and endless rhetorical fallacies.
Because, like I said, you can play a game for years and still not be "competent" at it.
This is without even going into the fact of high-level players disagreeing with each other, like we've seen in this thread. But you personally already weight the OP above someone like vindicarex, because you seem to have a personal problem with vindicarex. That's another factor. Someone could have a good and valid point, but word it terribly. Or worse, offensively. Or you could just plain not like them, nomatter the insight they bring tot he table.
There's a difference between "experience matters" and "post your playtime to prove a point". Experience is something that shows regardless of how much you talk about it.
Opinion post.
Playing a game for years and not being competent is another matter. Experience is needed as a basis in a balance discussion and that is visibly lacking, often to an extreme degree from some of the more vocal people on this forum. Nobody said anything to the effect of "post your playtime to prove a point". You are moving the goalpost, Gorb. You previous argument essentially that someone with potentially no experience has a place in a balance discussion, and should not be criticized for a lack thereof.
You claim that I weigh the OP higher than Vindicare because of pretty personal dislike, and not because of the fact that babyubyu has much more experience, especially with Ork, and is also higher ranking than vindicareX. Where is your evidence for this? Vindicares lack of experience with ork was obvious and I wasn't the only one who called him out on it. This is about game balance. You should know better than to take someone like Katitof seriously, who is someone with less than 10 1v1 games played, and most of them losses.
Gorb, do you know how many games Vindicare has played as Orks in comparison to Babyubyu and their ladder rankings? I'd also like to remind that Babyubyu has been at the top of the ladder for the history of the game, and not just recently where the ladder has meant less.
@Stoner said: @Katitof
Can I ask how many hours you spent in PvP overall?
Why does it matter? People have criticism of the game without even playing it, and we strive to defend their right to say it - even if we disagree with what they say.
Maybe leave the attempted personal slights out of a debate about balance?
Playing something can breed a familiarity, even an expertise, with the game. But you can also spend hours playing something and not become skilled at it. It's a false correlation. People are proven right by dint of their insight being accurate overall, their insight isn't automatically proven right because they had enough hours in PvP to satisfy your curiosity
Opinion post.
Of course experience matters. If you have someone who spends 99% of the their free time telling other people how to play and 0.01% of the time actually playing the game, how are you not going to take that into consideration and use that as valid criticism of their potential lack in perspective in your arguments?
It is not unreasonable to assume that these types people could be representative of portion of the population who are neurotic and have mental problems and are fulfilling their social needs on forums like this because nobody can stand them IRL. You can save time dealing with these types by pointing out their obvious flaws and ignoring them rather than address their non-stop heavy mental gymnastics and endless rhetorical fallacies.
Because, like I said, you can play a game for years and still not be "competent" at it.
This is without even going into the fact of high-level players disagreeing with each other, like we've seen in this thread. But you personally already weight the OP above someone like vindicarex, because you seem to have a personal problem with vindicarex. That's another factor. Someone could have a good and valid point, but word it terribly. Or worse, offensively. Or you could just plain not like them, nomatter the insight they bring tot he table.
There's a difference between "experience matters" and "post your playtime to prove a point". Experience is something that shows regardless of how much you talk about it.
Opinion post.
Playing a game for years and not being competent is another matter. Experience is needed as a basis in a balance discussion and that is visibly lacking, often to an extreme degree from some of the more vocal people on this forum. Nobody said anything to the effect of "post your playtime to prove a point". You are moving the goalpost, Gorb. You previous argument essentially that someone with potentially no experience has a place in a balance discussion, and should not be criticized for a lack thereof.
You claim that I weigh the OP higher than Vindicare because of pretty personal dislike, and not because of the fact that babyubyu has much more experience, especially with Ork, and is also higher ranking than vindicareX. Where is your evidence for this? Vindicares lack of experience with ork was obvious and I wasn't the only one who called him out on it. This is about game balance. You should know better than to take someone like Katitof seriously, who is someone with less than 10 1v1 games played, and most of them losses.
Gorb, do you know how many games Vindicare has played as Orks in comparison to Babyubyu and their ladder rankings? I'd also like to remind that Babyubyu has been at the top of the ladder for the history of the game, and not just recently where the ladder has meant less.
I'm sorry to disagree with you.
Do not always get experience playing, you can also capture imbalances by watching games in Twitch for example ... I do it constantly and that makes me know the game enough to be able to contribute my opinion in a balance discussion.
It is undeniable that experience is a degree, but the number of hours or games played reflected in a player's profile is not indicative of disqualification.
@Stoner said: @Katitof
Can I ask how many hours you spent in PvP overall?
Why does it matter? People have criticism of the game without even playing it, and we strive to defend their right to say it - even if we disagree with what they say.
Maybe leave the attempted personal slights out of a debate about balance?
Playing something can breed a familiarity, even an expertise, with the game. But you can also spend hours playing something and not become skilled at it. It's a false correlation. People are proven right by dint of their insight being accurate overall, their insight isn't automatically proven right because they had enough hours in PvP to satisfy your curiosity
Opinion post.
Of course experience matters. If you have someone who spends 99% of the their free time telling other people how to play and 0.01% of the time actually playing the game, how are you not going to take that into consideration and use that as valid criticism of their potential lack in perspective in your arguments?
It is not unreasonable to assume that these types people could be representative of portion of the population who are neurotic and have mental problems and are fulfilling their social needs on forums like this because nobody can stand them IRL. You can save time dealing with these types by pointing out their obvious flaws and ignoring them rather than address their non-stop heavy mental gymnastics and endless rhetorical fallacies.
Because, like I said, you can play a game for years and still not be "competent" at it.
This is without even going into the fact of high-level players disagreeing with each other, like we've seen in this thread. But you personally already weight the OP above someone like vindicarex, because you seem to have a personal problem with vindicarex. That's another factor. Someone could have a good and valid point, but word it terribly. Or worse, offensively. Or you could just plain not like them, nomatter the insight they bring tot he table.
There's a difference between "experience matters" and "post your playtime to prove a point". Experience is something that shows regardless of how much you talk about it.
Opinion post.
Playing a game for years and not being competent is another matter. Experience is needed as a basis in a balance discussion and that is visibly lacking, often to an extreme degree from some of the more vocal people on this forum. Nobody said anything to the effect of "post your playtime to prove a point". You are moving the goalpost, Gorb. You previous argument essentially that someone with potentially no experience has a place in a balance discussion, and should not be criticized for a lack thereof.
You claim that I weigh the OP higher than Vindicare because of pretty personal dislike, and not because of the fact that babyubyu has much more experience, especially with Ork, and is also higher ranking than vindicareX. Where is your evidence for this? Vindicares lack of experience with ork was obvious and I wasn't the only one who called him out on it. This is about game balance. You should know better than to take someone like Katitof seriously, who is someone with less than 10 1v1 games played, and most of them losses.
Gorb, do you know how many games Vindicare has played as Orks in comparison to Babyubyu and their ladder rankings? I'd also like to remind that Babyubyu has been at the top of the ladder for the history of the game, and not just recently where the ladder has meant less.
I'm sorry to disagree with you.
Do not always get experience playing, you can also capture imbalances by watching games in Twitch for example ... I do it constantly and that makes me know the game enough to be able to contribute my opinion in a balance discussion.
It is undeniable that experience is a degree, but the number of hours or games played reflected in a player's profile is not indicative of disqualification.
Prejudices have no place here.
You are another one and so it is amusing that you think I should care. This is like someone with 2 multiplayer games played telling someone with thousands of games that they are wrong about game balance. I just have to laugh in your face. You are a joke to me and anyone with common sense.
Sorry, but its the truth and you should have thought about that before you posted.
Well, you may be surprised to know that the balance of this game is precisely not made by people who spend all day playing, but by Relic workers who watching replays detect imbalances.
@Stoner said: @Katitof
Can I ask how many hours you spent in PvP overall?
Why does it matter? People have criticism of the game without even playing it, and we strive to defend their right to say it - even if we disagree with what they say.
Maybe leave the attempted personal slights out of a debate about balance?
Playing something can breed a familiarity, even an expertise, with the game. But you can also spend hours playing something and not become skilled at it. It's a false correlation. People are proven right by dint of their insight being accurate overall, their insight isn't automatically proven right because they had enough hours in PvP to satisfy your curiosity
Opinion post.
Of course experience matters. If you have someone who spends 99% of the their free time telling other people how to play and 0.01% of the time actually playing the game, how are you not going to take that into consideration and use that as valid criticism of their potential lack in perspective in your arguments?
It is not unreasonable to assume that these types people could be representative of portion of the population who are neurotic and have mental problems and are fulfilling their social needs on forums like this because nobody can stand them IRL. You can save time dealing with these types by pointing out their obvious flaws and ignoring them rather than address their non-stop heavy mental gymnastics and endless rhetorical fallacies.
Because, like I said, you can play a game for years and still not be "competent" at it.
This is without even going into the fact of high-level players disagreeing with each other, like we've seen in this thread. But you personally already weight the OP above someone like vindicarex, because you seem to have a personal problem with vindicarex. That's another factor. Someone could have a good and valid point, but word it terribly. Or worse, offensively. Or you could just plain not like them, nomatter the insight they bring tot he table.
There's a difference between "experience matters" and "post your playtime to prove a point". Experience is something that shows regardless of how much you talk about it.
Opinion post.
Playing a game for years and not being competent is another matter. Experience is needed as a basis in a balance discussion and that is visibly lacking, often to an extreme degree from some of the more vocal people on this forum. Nobody said anything to the effect of "post your playtime to prove a point". You are moving the goalpost, Gorb. You previous argument essentially that someone with potentially no experience has a place in a balance discussion, and should not be criticized for a lack thereof.
Literally never said that, sorry.
And yes, @Stoner explicitly asked for someone's playtime. To prove a point. It certainly wasn't idle curiosity. That's two things wrong, one paragraph in. I'm sorry, but I don't want to waste our time engaging with further accusations of fallacy and indulging in your personal issues with other high-level players.
@Stoner said: @Katitof
Can I ask how many hours you spent in PvP overall?
Why does it matter? ****People have criticism of the game without even playing it, and we strive to defend their right to say it - even if we disagree with what they say.
Maybe leave the attempted personal slights out of a debate about balance?
Is this NOT an argument that people with no experience have a place in a balance discussion? It certainly seems like you are saying that you defend the right of people with no experience and that experience should not be a factor, or do my eyes deceive me?
Matter is the permanent change. And deep one. First lot of players leave cause of power core mode and what they feel like moba like. Then relic decide to act... but it was to late. They put classical annihilition mode, but nearly no player on this mode. Instead of just polish some aspect and strategic part of their first decision.
Here, they do the same, actual players just becoming frustrated again cause of a change. Not a real direction!!! They should decide a way a keep on it. Cause players that left a RTS don't come back. So keep on which players are playing!
@Stoner said: @Katitof
Can I ask how many hours you spent in PvP overall?
Why does it matter? ****People have criticism of the game without even playing it, and we strive to defend their right to say it - even if we disagree with what they say.
Maybe leave the attempted personal slights out of a debate about balance?
Is this NOT an argument that people with no experience have a place in a balance discussion? It certainly seems like you are saying that you defend the right of people with no experience and that experience should not be a factor, or do my eyes deceive me?
busted.
Not at all. I said we defend the right of people who don't own the game to criticise it, to demonstrate that the value of hours invested in the product should not be invoked as a sole determiner of worth.
As I said: argue the points made, instead of attempting some kind of attack on the user. If you can't argue the points made, then that's an entirely different story
@Stoner said: @Katitof
Can I ask how many hours you spent in PvP overall?
Why does it matter? ****People have criticism of the game without even playing it, and we strive to defend their right to say it - even if we disagree with what they say.
Maybe leave the attempted personal slights out of a debate about balance?
Is this NOT an argument that people with no experience have a place in a balance discussion? It certainly seems like you are saying that you defend the right of people with no experience and that experience should not be a factor, or do my eyes deceive me?
busted.
I am not a moderator in this forum, but I have been for many years in others and I can prove it. I can tell you that with my experience in forums, I am better than you debating and therefore I can suggest that you should not participate in a debate because you do not have enough experience in dialoguing with others and that your contribution is not valid, of your opinion because they seem a joke to me.
I guess this is not funny and I'm sure you get mad at me for belittling you as a user. Well that's what you do constantly.
Obviously, I was being ironic and I respect you as a user, but I think we all deserve a better deal on your part and if you disagree with the opinions of "inexperienced" people, what you should do is convince debating, giving arguments and not disqualifying or disparaging.
@Stoner said: @Katitof
Can I ask how many hours you spent in PvP overall?
Why does it matter? ****People have criticism of the game without even playing it, and we strive to defend their right to say it - even if we disagree with what they say.
Maybe leave the attempted personal slights out of a debate about balance?
Is this NOT an argument that people with no experience have a place in a balance discussion? It certainly seems like you are saying that you defend the right of people with no experience and that experience should not be a factor, or do my eyes deceive me?
busted.
Not at all. I said we defend the right of people who don't own the game to criticise it, to demonstrate that the value of hours invested in the product should not be invoked as a sole determiner of worth.
As I said: argue the points made, instead of attempting some kind of attack on the user. If you can't argue the points made, then that's an entirely different story
being critical of the game is one thing, yes, but this is a balance discussion and you inferred that the same rules apply.
at least that is the impression I got. Especially when you said:
"Maybe leave the attempted personal slights out of a debate about balance?".
Given a player that has less than 10 1v1 games, such a Katitof. You do not think this should be a factor of consideration on value judgments in a balance discussion?
@Stoner said: @Katitof
Can I ask how many hours you spent in PvP overall?
Why does it matter? ****People have criticism of the game without even playing it, and we strive to defend their right to say it - even if we disagree with what they say.
Maybe leave the attempted personal slights out of a debate about balance?
Is this NOT an argument that people with no experience have a place in a balance discussion? It certainly seems like you are saying that you defend the right of people with no experience and that experience should not be a factor, or do my eyes deceive me?
busted.
Not at all. I said we defend the right of people who don't own the game to criticise it, to demonstrate that the value of hours invested in the product should not be invoked as a sole determiner of worth.
As I said: argue the points made, instead of attempting some kind of attack on the user. If you can't argue the points made, then that's an entirely different story
being critical of the game is one thing, yes, but this is a balance discussion and you inferred that the same rules apply.
at least that is the impression I got. Especially when you said:
"Maybe leave the attempted personal slights out of a debate about balance?".
Given a player that has less than 10 1v1 games, such a Katitof. You do not think this should be a factor of consideration on value judgments in a balance discussion?
Not really, no. Do we exclude people who solely play team games, or those that prefer those? Do we factor in AI games, given reports of how the AI is a vast improvement over previous games?
It's a personal slight. Your argument would be far stronger if you actually bothered to refute the points made. Making a discussion personal simply derails it (this discussion being a stellar example of such) and opens you to similar critique.
Just like you attempt to insult vindicareX over his Ork playtime, or similar. It's pointless. Debate the points made. Stop trying to dodge that discussion by making it about their playtime. They could be wrong, both of them. But playtime isn't a reason for that. It may be a factor, and you could perhaps prove that.
But it will never be the sole factor. Like I said, there are people that don't play the game that have critique of it, and critique that is considered important. If you want to disregard all of that as well, you'd be morally consistent, but in no better a position in this debate.
@Stoner said: @Katitof
Can I ask how many hours you spent in PvP overall?
Why does it matter? ****People have criticism of the game without even playing it, and we strive to defend their right to say it - even if we disagree with what they say.
Maybe leave the attempted personal slights out of a debate about balance?
Is this NOT an argument that people with no experience have a place in a balance discussion? It certainly seems like you are saying that you defend the right of people with no experience and that experience should not be a factor, or do my eyes deceive me?
busted.
Not at all. I said we defend the right of people who don't own the game to criticise it, to demonstrate that the value of hours invested in the product should not be invoked as a sole determiner of worth.
As I said: argue the points made, instead of attempting some kind of attack on the user. If you can't argue the points made, then that's an entirely different story
being critical of the game is one thing, yes, but this is a balance discussion and you inferred that the same rules apply.
at least that is the impression I got. Especially when you said:
"Maybe leave the attempted personal slights out of a debate about balance?".
Given a player that has less than 10 1v1 games, such a Katitof. You do not think this should be a factor of consideration on value judgments in a balance discussion?
Not really, no. Do we exclude people who solely play team games, or those that prefer those? Do we factor in AI games, given reports of how the AI is a vast improvement over previous games?
It's a personal slight. Your argument would be far stronger if you actually bothered to refute the points made. Making a discussion personal simply derails it (this discussion being a stellar example of such) and opens you to similar critique.
Just like you attempt to insult vindicareX over his Ork playtime, or similar. It's pointless. Debate the points made. Stop trying to dodge that discussion by making it about their playtime. They could be wrong, both of them. But playtime isn't a reason for that. It may be a factor, and you could perhaps prove that.
But it will never be the sole factor. Like I said, there are people that don't play the game that have critique of it, and critique that is considered important. If you want to disregard all of that as well, you'd be morally consistent, but in no better a position in this debate.
It is baffling to me that you think someone can't be partially discredited by their lack of experience in a balance discussion, and that you see such criticism as insults rather than something that has validity when comparing value judgements.
@Stoner said: @Katitof
Can I ask how many hours you spent in PvP overall?
Why does it matter? ****People have criticism of the game without even playing it, and we strive to defend their right to say it - even if we disagree with what they say.
Maybe leave the attempted personal slights out of a debate about balance?
Is this NOT an argument that people with no experience have a place in a balance discussion? It certainly seems like you are saying that you defend the right of people with no experience and that experience should not be a factor, or do my eyes deceive me?
busted.
Not at all. I said we defend the right of people who don't own the game to criticise it, to demonstrate that the value of hours invested in the product should not be invoked as a sole determiner of worth.
As I said: argue the points made, instead of attempting some kind of attack on the user. If you can't argue the points made, then that's an entirely different story
being critical of the game is one thing, yes, but this is a balance discussion and you inferred that the same rules apply.
at least that is the impression I got. Especially when you said:
"Maybe leave the attempted personal slights out of a debate about balance?".
Given a player that has less than 10 1v1 games, such a Katitof. You do not think this should be a factor of consideration on value judgments in a balance discussion?
Not really, no. Do we exclude people who solely play team games, or those that prefer those? Do we factor in AI games, given reports of how the AI is a vast improvement over previous games?
It's a personal slight. Your argument would be far stronger if you actually bothered to refute the points made. Making a discussion personal simply derails it (this discussion being a stellar example of such) and opens you to similar critique.
Just like you attempt to insult vindicareX over his Ork playtime, or similar. It's pointless. Debate the points made. Stop trying to dodge that discussion by making it about their playtime. They could be wrong, both of them. But playtime isn't a reason for that. It may be a factor, and you could perhaps prove that.
But it will never be the sole factor. Like I said, there are people that don't play the game that have critique of it, and critique that is considered important. If you want to disregard all of that as well, you'd be morally consistent, but in no better a position in this debate.
It is baffling to me that you think someone can't be partially discredited by their lack of experience in a balance discussion, and that you see such criticism as insults rather than something that has validity when comparing value judgements.
I hope you aren't going senile.
This is in general discussions, not the balance and feedback section, the entire OP was in general about the game, and not balance.
When you make suggestions that a person's point is moot because of their hours in a specific race or in what game type they play, be it 1v1 or 3v3, that is not an argumentive point, and is considered a slight against another player. It is baffling how you cannot understand this as others have pointed out multiple times.
All discussion is welcome here, if you have a problem with it, report it. You disregarding the validity of a user's post based on something that honestly doesn't even change much is just poor a way to handle or argue things.
@Stoner said: @Katitof
Can I ask how many hours you spent in PvP overall?
Why does it matter? ****People have criticism of the game without even playing it, and we strive to defend their right to say it - even if we disagree with what they say.
Maybe leave the attempted personal slights out of a debate about balance?
Is this NOT an argument that people with no experience have a place in a balance discussion? It certainly seems like you are saying that you defend the right of people with no experience and that experience should not be a factor, or do my eyes deceive me?
busted.
Not at all. I said we defend the right of people who don't own the game to criticise it, to demonstrate that the value of hours invested in the product should not be invoked as a sole determiner of worth.
As I said: argue the points made, instead of attempting some kind of attack on the user. If you can't argue the points made, then that's an entirely different story
being critical of the game is one thing, yes, but this is a balance discussion and you inferred that the same rules apply.
at least that is the impression I got. Especially when you said:
"Maybe leave the attempted personal slights out of a debate about balance?".
Given a player that has less than 10 1v1 games, such a Katitof. You do not think this should be a factor of consideration on value judgments in a balance discussion?
Not really, no. Do we exclude people who solely play team games, or those that prefer those? Do we factor in AI games, given reports of how the AI is a vast improvement over previous games?
It's a personal slight. Your argument would be far stronger if you actually bothered to refute the points made. Making a discussion personal simply derails it (this discussion being a stellar example of such) and opens you to similar critique.
Just like you attempt to insult vindicareX over his Ork playtime, or similar. It's pointless. Debate the points made. Stop trying to dodge that discussion by making it about their playtime. They could be wrong, both of them. But playtime isn't a reason for that. It may be a factor, and you could perhaps prove that.
But it will never be the sole factor. Like I said, there are people that don't play the game that have critique of it, and critique that is considered important. If you want to disregard all of that as well, you'd be morally consistent, but in no better a position in this debate.
It is baffling to me that you think someone can't be partially discredited by their lack of experience in a balance discussion, and that you see such criticism as insults rather than something that has validity when comparing value judgements.
I hope you aren't going senile.
It is baffling to 90% of community why you haven't had your rights to post in balance section revoked after you've became DoW3 meme with your kyre+pair of falcons to counter 6 minute nobz, but here you are.
@salvasc said:
Well, you may be surprised to know that the balance of this game is precisely not made by people who spend all day playing, but by Relic workers who watching replays detect imbalances.
And this is not a joke, I'm telling you.
I'd really like to highlight this ^
And that's a big, I mean BIG problem. Both high skill players and even us, not so experienced users, were begging Relic to invite and take feedback of aforementioned players from the first hands. Relic said that they balance game not only around top players but everyone else, but that statement makes absolutely no sense, because balance is one, and person with better skills have always better understanding of mechanics than any other regular user, otherwise he wouldn't be top player, that's non-arguable point. So if balance will be improved for high skill play field, it will be improved for any and all play fields at the same time.
Just imagine if Relic took feedback from players as it has been suggested, don't you think it would improve balance drastically several patches ago already? They may be best designers in the world, but they are still just humans, and they missing a LOT by not working hand in hand with those with better analytic abilities and priceless input. Just check this out, but I warn you, it's BRUTAL pain to watch:
After that, there can be no surprise why game is in such state...
@Stoner said: @Katitof
Can I ask how many hours you spent in PvP overall?
Why does it matter? ****People have criticism of the game without even playing it, and we strive to defend their right to say it - even if we disagree with what they say.
Maybe leave the attempted personal slights out of a debate about balance?
Is this NOT an argument that people with no experience have a place in a balance discussion? It certainly seems like you are saying that you defend the right of people with no experience and that experience should not be a factor, or do my eyes deceive me?
busted.
Not at all. I said we defend the right of people who don't own the game to criticise it, to demonstrate that the value of hours invested in the product should not be invoked as a sole determiner of worth.
As I said: argue the points made, instead of attempting some kind of attack on the user. If you can't argue the points made, then that's an entirely different story
being critical of the game is one thing, yes, but this is a balance discussion and you inferred that the same rules apply.
at least that is the impression I got. Especially when you said:
"Maybe leave the attempted personal slights out of a debate about balance?".
Given a player that has less than 10 1v1 games, such a Katitof. You do not think this should be a factor of consideration on value judgments in a balance discussion?
Not really, no. Do we exclude people who solely play team games, or those that prefer those? Do we factor in AI games, given reports of how the AI is a vast improvement over previous games?
It's a personal slight. Your argument would be far stronger if you actually bothered to refute the points made. Making a discussion personal simply derails it (this discussion being a stellar example of such) and opens you to similar critique.
Just like you attempt to insult vindicareX over his Ork playtime, or similar. It's pointless. Debate the points made. Stop trying to dodge that discussion by making it about their playtime. They could be wrong, both of them. But playtime isn't a reason for that. It may be a factor, and you could perhaps prove that.
But it will never be the sole factor. Like I said, there are people that don't play the game that have critique of it, and critique that is considered important. If you want to disregard all of that as well, you'd be morally consistent, but in no better a position in this debate.
It is baffling to me that you think someone can't be partially discredited by their lack of experience in a balance discussion, and that you see such criticism as insults rather than something that has validity when comparing value judgements.
I hope you aren't going senile.
It is baffling to 90% of community why you haven't had your rights to post in balance section revoked after you've became DoW3 meme with your kyre+pair of falcons to counter 6 minute nobz, but here you are.
You repeating lies and nonsense doesn't make a meme. Sorry.
How could a normal person not question the mental health of someone with say, 1500 posts on a forums of a video game (mostly berating others and telling them what is what), when they have less than 10 1v1 games played and most of them losses? How many people do you think see that as normal well-adjusted person?
I hear you were like this in DoW2 as well, and always absolute garbage at the game. Its funny that you think I am the meme here.
@Stoner said: @Katitof
Can I ask how many hours you spent in PvP overall?
Why does it matter? ****People have criticism of the game without even playing it, and we strive to defend their right to say it - even if we disagree with what they say.
Maybe leave the attempted personal slights out of a debate about balance?
Is this NOT an argument that people with no experience have a place in a balance discussion? It certainly seems like you are saying that you defend the right of people with no experience and that experience should not be a factor, or do my eyes deceive me?
busted.
Not at all. I said we defend the right of people who don't own the game to criticise it, to demonstrate that the value of hours invested in the product should not be invoked as a sole determiner of worth.
As I said: argue the points made, instead of attempting some kind of attack on the user. If you can't argue the points made, then that's an entirely different story
being critical of the game is one thing, yes, but this is a balance discussion and you inferred that the same rules apply.
at least that is the impression I got. Especially when you said:
"Maybe leave the attempted personal slights out of a debate about balance?".
Given a player that has less than 10 1v1 games, such a Katitof. You do not think this should be a factor of consideration on value judgments in a balance discussion?
Not really, no. Do we exclude people who solely play team games, or those that prefer those? Do we factor in AI games, given reports of how the AI is a vast improvement over previous games?
It's a personal slight. Your argument would be far stronger if you actually bothered to refute the points made. Making a discussion personal simply derails it (this discussion being a stellar example of such) and opens you to similar critique.
Just like you attempt to insult vindicareX over his Ork playtime, or similar. It's pointless. Debate the points made. Stop trying to dodge that discussion by making it about their playtime. They could be wrong, both of them. But playtime isn't a reason for that. It may be a factor, and you could perhaps prove that.
But it will never be the sole factor. Like I said, there are people that don't play the game that have critique of it, and critique that is considered important. If you want to disregard all of that as well, you'd be morally consistent, but in no better a position in this debate.
It is baffling to me that you think someone can't be partially discredited by their lack of experience in a balance discussion, and that you see such criticism as insults rather than something that has validity when comparing value judgements.
I hope you aren't going senile.
It is baffling to 90% of community why you haven't had your rights to post in balance section revoked after you've became DoW3 meme with your kyre+pair of falcons to counter 6 minute nobz, but here you are.
You repeating lies and nonsense doesn't make a meme. Sorry.
How could a normal person not question the mental health of someone with say, 1500 posts on a forums of a video game (mostly berating others and telling them what is what), when they have less than 10 1v1 games played and most of them losses? How many people do you think see that as normal well-adjusted person?
I hear you were like this in DoW2 as well, and always absolute garbage at the game. Its funny that you think I am the meme here.
The problem of only listening to the best players is that the level of skill they have is not the same as a beginner or normal player (obviously), so any skill or unit can become, in the hands of a PRO player, in something unbalanced, when sometimes only due to the high level and good management of these people. This can cause the skill or unit to be modified and the lower levels of players are affected by Nerfs that make it very difficult for them to move forward. That is where the boys of Relic take part, who do not play so much but if they analyze much the data. All the aids are good and can not be taken only from pro players or developers, they have to come to a point in common after a good analysis.
@salvasc said:
Well, you may be surprised to know that the balance of this game is precisely not made by people who spend all day playing, but by Relic workers who watching replays detect imbalances.
And this is not a joke, I'm telling you.
I'd really like to highlight this ^
And that's a big, I mean BIG problem. Both high skill players and even us, not so experienced users, were begging Relic to invite and take feedback of aforementioned players from the first hands. Relic said that they balance game not only around top players but everyone else, but that statement makes absolutely no sense, because balance is one, and person with better skills have always better understanding of mechanics than any other regular user, otherwise he wouldn't be top player, that's non-arguable point. So if balance will be improved for high skill play field, it will be improved for any and all play fields at the same time.
Just imagine if Relic took feedback from players as it has been suggested, don't you think it would improve balance drastically several patches ago already? They may be best designers in the world, but they are still just humans, and they missing a LOT by not working hand in hand with those with better analytic abilities and priceless input. Just check this out, but I warn you, it's BRUTAL pain to watch:
After that, there can be no surprise why game is in such state...
I must disagree with you, and usually I agree with most of your posts. As I have to take a bit frumpy side In the up discussion.
Firstly, I don't see anything super wrong in the Relic match. And to balance just based on top players feedback would be a huge mistake. For example I cite next SC2 patch that is based mostly in changes to make the game more accessible to the low tier players. For instance the changes to high Templar giving them a ranged attack, so lower skill players can use them properly.
Sure you should hear higher tier players too. But it's problematic too cause high level players also have a lot of bias. Not just on races as even elites or play styles.
For instance, the only player I have seem asking for more requisition in early game was cataclaw. But he favored a super aggressive style and the change would fit his personal favorite playstyle. I myself favour a very defensive early game playstyle so if I was a top player I would personally ask for improvements on early game defensive options and so on. Thankfully most people agree that offense is way too strong on early game so I hope to see changes on that sense.
So I would stick with unbiased metrics as in the end of the day they are more reliable... A elite have close to 100% pick rate? Probably there is something too good about it to make it almost a mandatory pick. Etc.
I agree. And my thoughts were that relic crafted the elite system so favored 100% elite unit picks would be givin a look at and balanced accordingly.
@salvasc said:
Well, you may be surprised to know that the balance of this game is precisely not made by people who spend all day playing, but by Relic workers who watching replays detect imbalances.
And this is not a joke, I'm telling you.
I'd really like to highlight this ^
And that's a big, I mean BIG problem. Both high skill players and even us, not so experienced users, were begging Relic to invite and take feedback of aforementioned players from the first hands. Relic said that they balance game not only around top players but everyone else, but that statement makes absolutely no sense, because balance is one, and person with better skills have always better understanding of mechanics than any other regular user, otherwise he wouldn't be top player, that's non-arguable point. So if balance will be improved for high skill play field, it will be improved for any and all play fields at the same time.
Just imagine if Relic took feedback from players as it has been suggested, don't you think it would improve balance drastically several patches ago already? They may be best designers in the world, but they are still just humans, and they missing a LOT by not working hand in hand with those with better analytic abilities and priceless input. Just check this out, but I warn you, it's BRUTAL pain to watch:
After that, there can be no surprise why game is in such state...
I must disagree with you, and usually I agree with most of your posts. As I have to take a bit frumpy side In the up discussion.
Firstly, I don't see anything super wrong in the Relic match. And to balance just based on top players feedback would be a huge mistake. For example I cite next SC2 patch that is based mostly in changes to make the game more accessible to the low tier players. For instance the changes to high Templar giving them a ranged attack, so lower skill players can use them properly.
Sure you should hear higher tier players too. But it's problematic too cause high level players also have a lot of bias. Not just on races as even elites or play styles.
For instance, the only player I have seem asking for more requisition in early game was cataclaw. But he favored a super aggressive style and the change would fit his personal favorite playstyle. I myself favour a very defensive early game playstyle so if I was a top player I would personally ask for improvements on early game defensive options and so on. Thankfully most people agree that offense is way too strong on early game so I hope to see changes on that sense.
So I would stick with unbiased metrics as in the end of the day they are more reliable... A elite have close to 100% pick rate? Probably there is something too good about it to make it almost a mandatory pick. Etc.
I have to make few corrections of my post then:
I didn't say they should randomly pick single top player from the bunch and prone game to his dreams. No, they should take feedback from several top players. This way things like doing changes to improve someone's personal playstyle won't happen, they can weight arguments and take middle route. But right now they pick pretty much random suggestions, sometimes twisting them in with their own vision and implement it in game. That's why some stuff gets brutally screwed up. I'm glad that current meta is very comfortable for your playstyle but isn't comfortable even a bit for mine. That means we shouldn't destroy your playstyle to make me happy f.e., but we should make both fully viable.
Considering video, they did several things wrong (like sending 3 squads with flamers on enemy side flank with no support and more) but overall in this video literally nothing happens for about ~30 minutes... I have seen enough both; high skill replays and played enough team games myself, and what happens there is definitely not ok. Even average skill players don't play like that.
And lastly on SC2 patch note, giving High Templar ranged attack isn't a balance change, it's small game mechanic change, which favors both high and low skill players, because with this all can get more efficiency out of that unit. I'm not sure this change was made only because low pool struggled with this unit.
@salvasc said:
The problem of only listening to the best players is that the level of skill they have is not the same as a beginner or normal player (obviously), so any skill or unit can become, in the hands of a PRO player, in something unbalanced, when sometimes only due to the high level and good management of these people. This can cause the skill or unit to be modified and the lower levels of players are affected by Nerfs that make it very difficult for them to move forward. That is where the boys of Relic take part, who do not play so much but if they analyze much the data. All the aids are good and can not be taken only from pro players or developers, they have to come to a point in common after a good analysis.
That's another important point you made which has inverted meaning:
Low skill player can complain about certain unit being IMBA, but only high skill player can develop right counter and display full capacity of each and every unit/upgrade/build/etc. In the end those players form metas, and lower skill players take those (as is or with some personal touches) and learn to play game properly. I think that shows pretty decisively whose word has more weight in the end.
@WorlockOrk said:
I think that this forum will survive the death of dow3 as majority of dow3 players spend more time on forum than playing the game. In the meantime, maybe some changes will happen and they are badly needed, in any perspective of dow 3 survival.
Opinion post
DoW 2 survived. So i think DoW 3 will be fine in the long run.
Sure you should hear higher tier players too. But it's problematic too cause high level players also have a lot of bias. Not just on races as even elites or play styles.
For instance, the only player I have seem asking for more requisition in early game was cataclaw. But he favored a super aggressive style and the change would fit his personal favorite playstyle. I myself favour a very defensive early game playstyle so if I was a top player I would personally ask for improvements on early game defensive options and so on. Thankfully most people agree that offense is way too strong on early game so I hope to see changes on that sense.
Dont take me out of context, i wanted playtest changes for how the requisition income works, to be based upon generators instead of free resources from the HQ.
Me personally, i did not mind the current requisition income at all when i was actively playing the game, i am actually wanting to micro an army instead of a squad! I never asked for more requisition is what i wanted to write here.
@WorlockOrk said:
I think that this forum will survive the death of dow3 as majority of dow3 players spend more time on forum than playing the game. In the meantime, maybe some changes will happen and they are badly needed, in any perspective of dow 3 survival.
Opinion post
DoW 3 seemed to be a game designed from the ground up to appeal to the 5 people over at Gamereplays.org and the playerbase reflects that now.
DoW3 has very stable balance. There are some design issues (like Elite respawn) I still think could be improved upon to address some of the issues brought up in this thread, but I also think it's important to realize; it's just not true that the game is not nearly as broken or ruined that a lot of posters here are saying.
What a garbage joke you say.
Most of people leaved this game because of disastrous balance and bad design. Especially this wrong notion of economy was last stroke to this game.
Wake up man. This game has only 300~400 active players for now.
Menu
Comments
salvasc
I come from the old school of Dow vanilla and the initial problems were the spiders vs the orks, the SPAM of the space marines, the Rush of the scouts to the heretics of Chaos and many other things ... Then came the imperial guard and his turret rush and SPAM guards with plasma or Chimeras was an odyssey. Then came the necrons with their unbalanced units and the Tau more unbalanced still but with shots from much farther ... and finally Soulstorm that was a real nonsense.
In short, Dow did not start well did not end up being better ... It was a great game, but not the best and had many balance faults ... Lots.
frumpylumps
Playing a game for years and not being competent is another matter. Experience is needed as a basis in a balance discussion and that is visibly lacking, often to an extreme degree from some of the more vocal people on this forum. Nobody said anything to the effect of "post your playtime to prove a point". You are moving the goalpost, Gorb. You previous argument essentially that someone with potentially no experience has a place in a balance discussion, and should not be criticized for a lack thereof.
You claim that I weigh the OP higher than Vindicare because of pretty personal dislike, and not because of the fact that babyubyu has much more experience, especially with Ork, and is also higher ranking than vindicareX. Where is your evidence for this? Vindicares lack of experience with ork was obvious and I wasn't the only one who called him out on it. This is about game balance. You should know better than to take someone like Katitof seriously, who is someone with less than 10 1v1 games played, and most of them losses.
Gorb, do you know how many games Vindicare has played as Orks in comparison to Babyubyu and their ladder rankings? I'd also like to remind that Babyubyu has been at the top of the ladder for the history of the game, and not just recently where the ladder has meant less.
salvasc
I'm sorry to disagree with you.
Do not always get experience playing, you can also capture imbalances by watching games in Twitch for example ... I do it constantly and that makes me know the game enough to be able to contribute my opinion in a balance discussion.
It is undeniable that experience is a degree, but the number of hours or games played reflected in a player's profile is not indicative of disqualification.
Prejudices have no place here.
salvasc
Well, you may be surprised to know that the balance of this game is precisely not made by people who spend all day playing, but by Relic workers who watching replays detect imbalances.
And this is not a joke, I'm telling you.
Gorb
Literally never said that, sorry.
And yes, @Stoner explicitly asked for someone's playtime. To prove a point. It certainly wasn't idle curiosity. That's two things wrong, one paragraph in. I'm sorry, but I don't want to waste our time engaging with further accusations of fallacy and indulging in your personal issues with other high-level players.
frumpylumps
Is this NOT an argument that people with no experience have a place in a balance discussion? It certainly seems like you are saying that you defend the right of people with no experience and that experience should not be a factor, or do my eyes deceive me?
busted.
Lakaoum
Matter is the permanent change. And deep one. First lot of players leave cause of power core mode and what they feel like moba like. Then relic decide to act... but it was to late. They put classical annihilition mode, but nearly no player on this mode. Instead of just polish some aspect and strategic part of their first decision.
Here, they do the same, actual players just becoming frustrated again cause of a change. Not a real direction!!! They should decide a way a keep on it. Cause players that left a RTS don't come back. So keep on which players are playing!
Gorb
Not at all. I said we defend the right of people who don't own the game to criticise it, to demonstrate that the value of hours invested in the product should not be invoked as a sole determiner of worth.
As I said: argue the points made, instead of attempting some kind of attack on the user. If you can't argue the points made, then that's an entirely different story
salvasc
I am not a moderator in this forum, but I have been for many years in others and I can prove it. I can tell you that with my experience in forums, I am better than you debating and therefore I can suggest that you should not participate in a debate because you do not have enough experience in dialoguing with others and that your contribution is not valid, of your opinion because they seem a joke to me.
I guess this is not funny and I'm sure you get mad at me for belittling you as a user. Well that's what you do constantly.
Obviously, I was being ironic and I respect you as a user, but I think we all deserve a better deal on your part and if you disagree with the opinions of "inexperienced" people, what you should do is convince debating, giving arguments and not disqualifying or disparaging.
frumpylumps
being critical of the game is one thing, yes, but this is a balance discussion and you inferred that the same rules apply.
at least that is the impression I got. Especially when you said:
"Maybe leave the attempted personal slights out of a debate about balance?".
Given a player that has less than 10 1v1 games, such a Katitof. You do not think this should be a factor of consideration on value judgments in a balance discussion?
Gorb
Not really, no. Do we exclude people who solely play team games, or those that prefer those? Do we factor in AI games, given reports of how the AI is a vast improvement over previous games?
It's a personal slight. Your argument would be far stronger if you actually bothered to refute the points made. Making a discussion personal simply derails it (this discussion being a stellar example of such) and opens you to similar critique.
Just like you attempt to insult vindicareX over his Ork playtime, or similar. It's pointless. Debate the points made. Stop trying to dodge that discussion by making it about their playtime. They could be wrong, both of them. But playtime isn't a reason for that. It may be a factor, and you could perhaps prove that.
But it will never be the sole factor. Like I said, there are people that don't play the game that have critique of it, and critique that is considered important. If you want to disregard all of that as well, you'd be morally consistent, but in no better a position in this debate.
frumpylumps
It is baffling to me that you think someone can't be partially discredited by their lack of experience in a balance discussion, and that you see such criticism as insults rather than something that has validity when comparing value judgements.
I hope you aren't going senile.
Wikkyd
This is in general discussions, not the balance and feedback section, the entire OP was in general about the game, and not balance.
When you make suggestions that a person's point is moot because of their hours in a specific race or in what game type they play, be it 1v1 or 3v3, that is not an argumentive point, and is considered a slight against another player. It is baffling how you cannot understand this as others have pointed out multiple times.
All discussion is welcome here, if you have a problem with it, report it. You disregarding the validity of a user's post based on something that honestly doesn't even change much is just poor a way to handle or argue things.
Katitof
It is baffling to 90% of community why you haven't had your rights to post in balance section revoked after you've became DoW3 meme with your kyre+pair of falcons to counter 6 minute nobz, but here you are.
Stoner
I'd really like to highlight this ^
And that's a big, I mean BIG problem. Both high skill players and even us, not so experienced users, were begging Relic to invite and take feedback of aforementioned players from the first hands. Relic said that they balance game not only around top players but everyone else, but that statement makes absolutely no sense, because balance is one, and person with better skills have always better understanding of mechanics than any other regular user, otherwise he wouldn't be top player, that's non-arguable point. So if balance will be improved for high skill play field, it will be improved for any and all play fields at the same time.
Just imagine if Relic took feedback from players as it has been suggested, don't you think it would improve balance drastically several patches ago already? They may be best designers in the world, but they are still just humans, and they missing a LOT by not working hand in hand with those with better analytic abilities and priceless input. Just check this out, but I warn you, it's BRUTAL pain to watch:
After that, there can be no surprise why game is in such state...
frumpylumps
You repeating lies and nonsense doesn't make a meme. Sorry.
How could a normal person not question the mental health of someone with say, 1500 posts on a forums of a video game (mostly berating others and telling them what is what), when they have less than 10 1v1 games played and most of them losses? How many people do you think see that as normal well-adjusted person?
I hear you were like this in DoW2 as well, and always absolute garbage at the game. Its funny that you think I am the meme here.
Truth hurt? Deal with it.
CANNED_F3TUS
Salty poop pretzl stix.
salvasc
The problem of only listening to the best players is that the level of skill they have is not the same as a beginner or normal player (obviously), so any skill or unit can become, in the hands of a PRO player, in something unbalanced, when sometimes only due to the high level and good management of these people. This can cause the skill or unit to be modified and the lower levels of players are affected by Nerfs that make it very difficult for them to move forward. That is where the boys of Relic take part, who do not play so much but if they analyze much the data. All the aids are good and can not be taken only from pro players or developers, they have to come to a point in common after a good analysis.
CANNED_F3TUS
I agree. And my thoughts were that relic crafted the elite system so favored 100% elite unit picks would be givin a look at and balanced accordingly.
Stoner
I have to make few corrections of my post then:
I didn't say they should randomly pick single top player from the bunch and prone game to his dreams. No, they should take feedback from several top players. This way things like doing changes to improve someone's personal playstyle won't happen, they can weight arguments and take middle route. But right now they pick pretty much random suggestions, sometimes twisting them in with their own vision and implement it in game. That's why some stuff gets brutally screwed up. I'm glad that current meta is very comfortable for your playstyle but isn't comfortable even a bit for mine. That means we shouldn't destroy your playstyle to make me happy f.e., but we should make both fully viable.
Considering video, they did several things wrong (like sending 3 squads with flamers on enemy side flank with no support and more) but overall in this video literally nothing happens for about ~30 minutes... I have seen enough both; high skill replays and played enough team games myself, and what happens there is definitely not ok. Even average skill players don't play like that.
And lastly on SC2 patch note, giving High Templar ranged attack isn't a balance change, it's small game mechanic change, which favors both high and low skill players, because with this all can get more efficiency out of that unit. I'm not sure this change was made only because low pool struggled with this unit.
That's another important point you made which has inverted meaning:
Low skill player can complain about certain unit being IMBA, but only high skill player can develop right counter and display full capacity of each and every unit/upgrade/build/etc. In the end those players form metas, and lower skill players take those (as is or with some personal touches) and learn to play game properly. I think that shows pretty decisively whose word has more weight in the end.
CANNED_F3TUS
DoW 2 survived. So i think DoW 3 will be fine in the long run.
Oppinion post.
Cataclawy
Dont take me out of context, i wanted playtest changes for how the requisition income works, to be based upon generators instead of free resources from the HQ.
Me personally, i did not mind the current requisition income at all when i was actively playing the game, i am actually wanting to micro an army instead of a squad! I never asked for more requisition is what i wanted to write here.
RaspberryTurtle
DoW 3 seemed to be a game designed from the ground up to appeal to the 5 people over at Gamereplays.org and the playerbase reflects that now.
destynova
What a garbage joke you say.
Most of people leaved this game because of disastrous balance and bad design. Especially this wrong notion of economy was last stroke to this game.
Wake up man. This game has only 300~400 active players for now.