BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

User avatar
CornProducts
Colonel
Posts: 2959
Joined: Mon 7 Apr 2014 06:48
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby CornProducts » Fri 16 May 2014 09:36

reportforduty wrote: and what does the eastern block bring to the table,

nothing.


nothing.

nothing.

nothing.

Take this soap and wash your mouth of those filthy lies.

Spoiler : :
Image
Image

elitesix
Corporal
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat 14 Apr 2012 05:29
Contact:

Top 9 Ranked Players All Play Blufor. RD is not balanced.

Postby elitesix » Fri 16 May 2014 14:46

Go to the in-game leaderboard and see for yourself. There is currently not a single Redfor player in the top 9 ranked players. The top 10-20 has a few Redfor players, but still has more Blufor players. The game is obviously not balanced. It's unfortunate that Eugen has its head in the sand by looking at non-relevant, casual multiplayer win/loss stats for balance when it's so clear just by taking a quick look at the leaderboard how off the game balance is.


I burn through games pretty quick, so I doubt I'd be around for when this game may be balanced in the future, but I hope for the community's sake Eugen addresses this instead of fooling itself that that casual, non-competitive multiplayer stats are indicative of balance.

Edit: This new thread got move into this old thread, buried onto page 26 of the win/loss stats. It truly deserves it's own thread. Oh well. You can only do so much to raise awareness of real game balance issues. The rest is up to Eugen.
Last edited by [EUG]MadMat on Fri 16 May 2014 14:48, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Merged with similar thread.

Alcorr
Master Sergeant
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon 5 May 2014 23:47
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Alcorr » Fri 16 May 2014 15:27

elitesix wrote:
Gneckes wrote:
elitesix wrote:Is there a place you can see the side played by the top 20 ranked players?


You can just go to the Leaderboard and look at the statistics of the top 20 players, including factions played.


Wow thank you.

The proof's in the pudding.

As of 8:00 EST 5-14-14, in the top 10 players, 9 play Blufor for 90% of their ranked games (most above 95%, one might be at 80%). 1 plays redfor for about 90%+ of his games. Guess where that redfor player is? Number #10. Bottom line is, the top 9 players in this game are all bluefor players. Clearly, this game is not balanced.

Statistics are useful, but only if you look at the right ones. Eugen, please balance the sides so redfor players have a fair shot at ranked play.


This is what more people should be looking at. It's the most obvious proof that the game isn't even remotely balanced. And anyone that thinks the game should be balanced around casual play instead of competitive play is a moron. Any remotely balanced game is balanced around high end play, not casual play.

When 9 out of 10 of the best players in the game play 80-95% blufor, something is wrong.

The argument that "blufor is easier to play, derp" falls flat on it's face when we are talking the top 10 players in the game.

User avatar
Mitchverr
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 10646
Joined: Sat 24 Mar 2012 18:08
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Mitchverr » Fri 16 May 2014 15:35

Ignoring ofcourse, that the people at the top might just simply rather play blufor nations for other reasons? A bit like how blufor was fairly UP by a big chunk in the ALB beta, but still was filling faster then redfor was....


You simply cant just go "9 out of 10 are x thus x has an advantage" when so much else is in there.... from personal prefference and playstyle to simply wanting to use x unit.

Really, really is bad to just assume, because when you assume they all play blufor because blufor op, you make an ass of you and me.

all it does is show people at the top like blufor nations/coalitions/mixed, nothing else in the context is shown, at all, and whats the overall numbers? I would guess, from all the people who talk about it, that on a player level, 9/10 players would rather play blufor for alot of reasons outside of balance.
Image

reportforduty
Private
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon 28 May 2012 05:22
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby reportforduty » Fri 16 May 2014 15:39

CornProducts wrote:
reportforduty wrote: and what does the eastern block bring to the table,

nothing.


nothing.

nothing.

nothing.

Take this soap and wash your mouth of those filthy lies.

Spoiler : :
Image


Comrade, are you happy with the state of the East Block? The truth hurts and the truth is, east block is soviet scrap on sale. :cry:

Mot
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 955
Joined: Mon 21 Jan 2013 17:00
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Mot » Fri 16 May 2014 16:04

KittyKitsune wrote:No one will believe what you say until you have proven you don't weight as much as a duck mot : >

:lol:

reportforduty wrote:Redfor in general just feels half-assed with the unit selection, and what does the eastern block bring to the table, nothing.

BLASPHEMY!!! Eastern Block is awesome!
Wait, let me rephrase that.
When compared to USSR, Eastern Block is awesome!

(Keep in mind that Eastern Block didn't get their new stuff, they will be properly balanced in a later DLC, and by balanced I mean a general price increase of 30% ;))
"I suck at Wargame" or "I have to wait 30 minutes to pubstomp people" are not solid arguments to criticize the game... just saying.

Alcorr
Master Sergeant
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon 5 May 2014 23:47
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Alcorr » Fri 16 May 2014 16:45

Mitchverr wrote:Ignoring ofcourse, that the people at the top might just simply rather play blufor nations for other reasons? A bit like how blufor was fairly UP by a big chunk in the ALB beta, but still was filling faster then redfor was....


You simply cant just go "9 out of 10 are x thus x has an advantage" when so much else is in there.... from personal prefference and playstyle to simply wanting to use x unit.

Really, really is bad to just assume, because when you assume they all play blufor because blufor op, you make an ass of you and me.

all it does is show people at the top like blufor nations/coalitions/mixed, nothing else in the context is shown, at all, and whats the overall numbers? I would guess, from all the people who talk about it, that on a player level, 9/10 players would rather play blufor for alot of reasons outside of balance.


Thing is, at the highest levels of gameplay, it is very rare (practically unheard of) to have players playing just what they feel like they like for any reason other than winning.

Pros will pick the strongest factions and pick the strongest units in order to maximize their win percentage/potential and move up the leaderboard. No one is getting to top10 by building line infantry decks because they are historically accurate or using armored decks because they are fun.

At the highest levels of gameplay in ANY game people are going to use the most powerful units/factions to win, end of story. Perhaps if the breakdown was 60/40 you would have a point, but 90% is too much to simply write off as people merely liking blufor more than redfor for whatever silly reason.

For the record, I play about 80% blufor, not because I like blufor units, but because it maximizes my win potential, and winning is fun. Why would I play redfor when they're simply subpar with just a few exceptions?

Gneckes
Warrant Officer
Posts: 482
Joined: Fri 10 Feb 2012 16:48
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Gneckes » Fri 16 May 2014 17:19

Alcorr wrote:
Mitchverr wrote:Ignoring ofcourse, that the people at the top might just simply rather play blufor nations for other reasons? A bit like how blufor was fairly UP by a big chunk in the ALB beta, but still was filling faster then redfor was....


You simply cant just go "9 out of 10 are x thus x has an advantage" when so much else is in there.... from personal prefference and playstyle to simply wanting to use x unit.

Really, really is bad to just assume, because when you assume they all play blufor because blufor op, you make an ass of you and me.

all it does is show people at the top like blufor nations/coalitions/mixed, nothing else in the context is shown, at all, and whats the overall numbers? I would guess, from all the people who talk about it, that on a player level, 9/10 players would rather play blufor for alot of reasons outside of balance.


Thing is, at the highest levels of gameplay, it is very rare (practically unheard of) to have players playing just what they feel like they like for any reason other than winning.

Pros will pick the strongest factions and pick the strongest units in order to maximize their win percentage/potential and move up the leaderboard. No one is getting to top10 by building line infantry decks because they are historically accurate or using armored decks because they are fun.

At the highest levels of gameplay in ANY game people are going to use the most powerful units/factions to win, end of story. Perhaps if the breakdown was 60/40 you would have a point, but 90% is too much to simply write off as people merely liking blufor more than redfor for whatever silly reason.

For the record, I play about 80% blufor, not because I like blufor units, but because it maximizes my win potential, and winning is fun. Why would I play redfor when they're simply subpar with just a few exceptions?


+ 56515647
Common sense shall thus be referred to as rare sense.

MENTORImage

elitesix
Corporal
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat 14 Apr 2012 05:29
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby elitesix » Fri 16 May 2014 18:44

If Eugen is interested in how the Blizzard class-act of balancing is done, note Blizzard's balance reasoning: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/11884068394#1

"After testing in the current balance test map, watching current pro level matches, gathering your feedback, and hearing from pro players, we’ve decided that another balance update is needed soon."

This is after a recent string of repeated Protoss tournament wins in the last few months of 2013 that continued through the beginning of 2014. Background here: http://www.dailydot.com/esports/starcraft-protoss-dominate-why/


If you want to balance the game, you gotta look at what's happening in the top ranked games. The sides played. The units used. The maps' gameplay. And talk to the pro's themselves. There's simply no way around it. Non-ranked stats are meaningless. You might as well include stats from comp-stomps if you're going to base your statistics on non-ranked play.
Last edited by elitesix on Fri 16 May 2014 18:55, edited 2 times in total.

Alcorr
Master Sergeant
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon 5 May 2014 23:47
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Alcorr » Fri 16 May 2014 18:49

elitesix wrote:If Eugen is interested in how the Blizzard class-act of balancing is done, note Blizzard's balance reasoning: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/11884068394#1

"After testing in the current balance test map, watching current pro level matches, gathering your feedback, and hearing from pro players, we’ve decided that another balance update is needed soon."

This is after a recent string of repeated Protoss tournament in the last few months of 2013 that continued through the beginning of 2014. Background here: http://www.dailydot.com/esports/starcraft-protoss-dominate-why/


If you want to balance the game, you gotta look at what's happening in the top ranked games. The sides played. The units used. The maps gameplay. And talk to the pro's themselves. There's simply no way around it. Non-ranked stats are meaningless. You might as well include stats from comp-stomps if you're going to base your statistics on non-ranked play.


Precisely.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 65 guests