BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

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

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Gneckes » Sat 17 May 2014 12:31

Basil_pup wrote:
solaris wrote:If the base level game feels unplayably unbalanced, no one will play long enough to get to the pro level where such tiny differences really are important. Funny enough, that's what seems to happen every time I try to introduce people to RD.

Newcomer : "WFT ? My supercool top tank was obliterated by cheap infantry ! Balance this sh*** or I'll drop this game"
@ game balanced as he wanted
Already-not-a-newcomer :"Got it ?! I'm pro in this game , so nothing to do here , I'm going to dig some carrot in my farmville...."
You can't listen to the most of new players , it is like feeding children with candies all day long.


I agree - this just reminds me of the old "WTF, my super-awesome T-80U got blown up by an ATGM plane, pls buff!!!" nonsense we saw in ALB. Basing Balance primarily on less-than-great Players is a horrible idea.
Common sense shall thus be referred to as rare sense.

MENTORImage

solaris
Lieutenant
Posts: 1400
Joined: Mon 13 May 2013 06:10
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby solaris » Sat 17 May 2014 12:56

If no concessions are never made, the pros will quit anyway because they will know on a first name basis the only other people they can play with. Boredom will fell as many as frustration. It's unfair to say all complaints by new players are low lying "buff muh supertank" type whining.
Anecdotes do not count for game balance.

User avatar
Tonci87
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu 17 Oct 2013 17:13
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Tonci87 » Sat 17 May 2014 13:35

I would really love to know how many of the Redfor wins were accomplished with Soviet Decks vs. the losses with Soviet Decks. :roll:
ImageImage
German realism oriented Arma Coop Community http://www.brigade2010.de

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

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Alcorr » Sat 17 May 2014 15:16

Basil_pup wrote:
solaris wrote:If the base level game feels unplayably unbalanced, no one will play long enough to get to the pro level where such tiny differences really are important. Funny enough, that's what seems to happen every time I try to introduce people to RD.

Newcomer : "WFT ? My supercool top tank was obliterated by cheap infantry ! Balance this sh*** or I'll drop this game"
@ game balanced as he wanted
Already-not-a-newcomer :"Got it ?! I'm pro in this game , so nothing to do here , I'm going to dig some carrot in my farmville...."
You can't listen to the most of new players , it is like feeding children with candies all day long.


Exactly!!

Balancing around casual players is just a horrible idea, absolutely horrible.

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

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Alcorr » Sat 17 May 2014 15:22

solaris wrote:If no concessions are never made, the pros will quit anyway because they will know on a first name basis the only other people they can play with. Boredom will fell as many as frustration. It's unfair to say all complaints by new players are low lying "buff muh supertank" type whining.


It's actually the opposite. If "concessions" are made to new players in order to make them happy at the cost of competitive gameplay, then the game as a whole will suffer because the very core of the game (the highest skill ceiling) is severely lowered so some noob can feel like his t80u is mega useful.

Lowering the skill ceiling is never a good idea if you actually want a GOOD quality game, only a good idea if you want the barrier to entry to be easier so noobs can get into the game easier.

Pandering to casuals means noobs can understand the game easier, but also means serious players lose interest faster because the core of the game is imbalanced. It's really just that simple.

None of the examples listed by people between units being useful in 1v1s compared to 10v10s are actual balance issues, just people not understanding how to use units to their potential, then asking for unwarranted buffs.

Should starcraft units be turned into easy mode and many functions automated so that noobs playing 4v4s can have an easier time? Of course not, that would mean the very quality of the gameplay is lowered and gutted just so some scrubs coming from call of duty can have an easy time winning. It's like "no rush" rules in many RTS. Totally ridiculous as far as the quality of gameplay goes, but scrubs will ask for it because they don't want to adapt/learn and want the game to adapt to them.

Beermachine
Private First-Class
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed 21 Mar 2012 16:37
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Beermachine » Sat 17 May 2014 15:50

Interesting posts from both sides of the balance discussion on the last few pages.

A point worth considering is that what happens with a game balanced around casual play 6 months down the line? The vast majority of the casual players will have moved on to the next best thing, and the few who have for want of a better word "graduated" to more competitive play are left with a game not balanced for them.

Something as simple as some reasonably competitive default deck builds would go a long way into easing new players in, rather than the poor ones that have existed so far in the Wargame series.

Another important question is what game mode / player numbers is this game balanced around? Even balancing for 1v1 vs 2v2 using the same rules / units / prices is incredibly hard or downright impossible in most RTS's. I doubt even a team of Albert Einstein IQ people given years could balance the huge number of variables in Wargame for 1v1 to 10v10, conquest, destruction and economy....

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

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Alcorr » Sat 17 May 2014 16:24

Beermachine wrote:Interesting posts from both sides of the balance discussion on the last few pages.

A point worth considering is that what happens with a game balanced around casual play 6 months down the line? The vast majority of the casual players will have moved on to the next best thing, and the few who have for want of a better word "graduated" to more competitive play are left with a game not balanced for them.

Something as simple as some reasonably competitive default deck builds would go a long way into easing new players in, rather than the poor ones that have existed so far in the Wargame series.

Another important question is what game mode / player numbers is this game balanced around? Even balancing for 1v1 vs 2v2 using the same rules / units / prices is incredibly hard or downright impossible in most RTS's. I doubt even a team of Albert Einstein IQ people given years could balance the huge number of variables in Wargame for 1v1 to 10v10, conquest, destruction and economy....


I agree with your first two points. As far as perfect balance between 1v1 and 10v10, that's impossible to achieve, which is why the game should be balanced around 1v1 because that's the best option if you're hoping to achieve overall game balance.

Balancing around 1v1 means that the units/tactics and whatnot still apply to 10v10s. If you balance for a 10v10, that means some units are going to be totally broken in 1v1s, but not as much the other way around.

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

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Mot » Sat 17 May 2014 16:45

RangerPL wrote:Balancing around high-level play gives players a higher skill ceiling. There's an incentive to develop new tactics and playstyles as you learn and gain experience, thus leading to a game that is more fun in general and doesn't get old as quickly.

Yeah I agree 100% with this.
What would be handy is some kind of matchmaking to help new players get matches on their level, I bet a lot of players get this game, get crushed 3-4-5 times in a row, and go back to World in Conflict where they had a chance.
"I suck at Wargame" or "I have to wait 30 minutes to pubstomp people" are not solid arguments to criticize the game... just saying.

User avatar
Drang
Major-General
Posts: 3725
Joined: Sun 3 Feb 2013 04:20
Location: Fighting on the edge of the world
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Drang » Sat 17 May 2014 17:38

RangerPL wrote:
Drang wrote:This proves the game is (mostly) balanced r/e Blufor/REDFOR.

It proves nothing else.

This proves that wins are roughly equally distributed between Blufor/Redfor.

No more, no less.

Win % isn't a function of just unit stats, as there are other variables at play. So you cannot say anything about game balance without controlling for those variables.

The Eugen apologists would have a much stronger case if the data was from a specific game type, but it isn't.


What other variables?

I'm personally more inclined to the "balance around authenticity" than "balance around a bunch of meta-as--tryhards". But that's because I've no interest and probably not the ability to be pro at this game. I bought wargame as that: A wargame, a good approximation of a late cold-war meeting engagement. Not as some micro-intensive fragfest; there is a reason I don't play screaming retard RTS's.

Balancing the game around the extreme ends of the spectrum - the newbies or the pros - or even around the normal demographic - is nonsensical. The game should be one where each piece of equipment's capabilities are represented as authentically as possible: and then balanced with price and availability accordingly.

Why?

1. Because this is fair. It is neither advantageous to the pros, to the average player, or to the new.
2. Because "win at all costs" tournament logic is a toxic as attitude to balance an entire game around.
Last edited by OpusTheFowl on Sat 17 May 2014 18:14, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Language

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

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Alcorr » Sat 17 May 2014 19:56

The game should be one where each piece of equipment's capabilities are represented as authentically as possible: and then balanced with price and availability accordingly.


That's the problem though. I agree with that, and so do most people, but where it becomes questionable is what the price for units should be. That's up for discussion.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 58 guests