REDFOR advantages

The Chivalrous One
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue 1 Apr 2014 03:05
Location: New York
Contact:

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby The Chivalrous One » Sat 17 May 2014 08:35

The Chivalrous One wrote:
Mikeboy wrote:
Mako wrote:
So they can disagree with fact and stats based arguments by claiming everyone else needs to L2P and I know because I'm so pro?


None of us that play on a competitive level (at least none that I play with) really think we are better and are screaming L2P when we play others. Likewise nobody plays this game professionally, we have tourneys for fun (and sometimes bragging rights) but there is no money involved and since the game has a "smaller" community it would be really hard to make a living off streaming Wargame or from ad revenue on you tube.

I'm not going to lie, I really don't like playing in a game against pubs as a team (even one that is not very good) should and will crush pubs. There is no cordination and to be honest most pubs are newer players who have not made friends with other players yet.

I think you missed what happened in Vasily's thread last week...


Most likely, I think its obvious due to the amount of posts I have I only browse the forums like 3 times a week...

If that thread went the way I am thinking it did than that is only a small amount of more "competitive" players that act as if they are above others. I know that there are the asshats out there but to be honest most of the competitive players are not asses that throw out L2P all the time. To be honest I really think anyone who throws out L2P in the first place is not worth listening too and even more so if they cant back their points up. What I put in that long post is what I actually have used/done to counter said units and BLU alternatives. Plus suprise suprise something you never hear on the forum I can actually back up what I have said with replays.... I know shocking :o :shock:
Image

User avatar
Mikeboy
General
Posts: 5354
Joined: Sat 27 Apr 2013 21:59
Location: Democratic People's Republic of Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby Mikeboy » Sat 17 May 2014 10:42

They weren't worth listening to, if it was anyone else they'd have been laughed out the thread, but for some baffling reason he's a Marshall.

Anyway's that's all I'm going to say on the matter.

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

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby Mot » Sat 17 May 2014 16:40

[EUG]MadMat wrote:For, who here in our position would think wise on a professionaly or even commercialy-wise to favor one side? Do you think favoring a nation, alliance, ... for political or personnal reasons would bring you customer, or on the contrary, piss most off?
So, calling us bias is basically calling us stupid, dumb or unprofessional in our face, on this privately owned forum.
We're open to critics, not accusation. If one comes in our garden to throw insults at us, we're kicking him out ...

Its not black and white, you are implying that bias means "on purpose", when in fact most often its not, usually its just a consequence of outside pressures, this is seen in our everyday life, it doesn't mean you are unprofessional or dumb, it just means the devs are human.

Guggy wrote:Was going to say that REDFOR had an advantage in making awful threads, but after THIS ONE... I'm not so sure!

:lol:
nice one!

Mako wrote:I'd really like to see some more competitive/tryhard players weighing in on this thread.

The issue is that those on top have a lower chance of acknowledging the problems with the current state of affairs, because they are the ones that benefit from it. Its just like politics ;)
"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
[EUG]MadMat
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 15486
Joined: Thu 30 Jun 2011 13:31
Location: Paris, France.
Contact:

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby [EUG]MadMat » Sat 17 May 2014 17:22

Mot wrote:Its not black and white, you are implying that bias means "on purpose", when in fact most often its not, usually its just a consequence of outside pressures, this is seen in our everyday life, it doesn't mean you are unprofessional or dumb, it just means the devs are human.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz25N72cQxs#t=168

User avatar
GBNATO
General
Posts: 5884
Joined: Sun 14 Apr 2013 12:20
Location: The Republic of Dave
Contact:

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby GBNATO » Sat 17 May 2014 18:51

[EUG]MadMat wrote:
Mot wrote:Its not black and white, you are implying that bias means "on purpose", when in fact most often its not, usually its just a consequence of outside pressures, this is seen in our everyday life, it doesn't mean you are unprofessional or dumb, it just means the devs are human.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz25N72cQxs#t=168


Bravo, that is one of the most perfectly fitting links I have ever seen. :lol:

An artist with a URL.
Image

Seer7
Warrant Officer
Posts: 485
Joined: Tue 4 Jun 2013 07:26
Contact:

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby Seer7 » Sat 17 May 2014 19:39

[EUG]MadMat wrote:
lemonsquid wrote:Oh I forgot that both sides were supposed to be fair and even across the board.

Indeed, they've won pretty much as many games since release.

And to refine that, the overall ratio which was 50,93% in favor of NATO was calculated as 54% since the last stats (about a week). That's still a long way from the "70%" to "90%" NATO win I keep reading.

I also keep reading that nobody plays "REDFOR" (reading "USSR", for people complaining the most about "REDFOR" usually means USSR instead). Over the last week, the most played decks were:
#1 ... USSR! (22%)
#2 ... USA! (16%)
#3 ... mixed decks, either PACT or NATO (I don't have the breaking).
Strangely the two "UP/underdog/no one ever plays them because Eurocorps OP/..." and the mixed decks, supposedly dead.

If USSR is the most popular coalition in the game it makes sense that it would get a larger share of complaints, as there are things to complain about. It's also interesting that USSR is the most played coalition, with nearly 25% of players, yet Blufor still hold the advantage in win rates. I must ask: would you be able to release the total percentage of players per side (Blufor vs Redfor)? I'm curious. Obviously people change decks, but the point would be to see which side is played more often in terms of deck use overall. Showing the breakdown for total deck use would also be enlightening, but I'm more curious about the former.

And honestly, I think you put too much stock in people running their mouths, MadMat. I don't know who drove you to release this information but it wasn't me, and from what I've read it wasn't the most prominent 'Redfor' commentators either. Most of the bias accusations I've seen here are off the cuff from randoms and clearly meant to agitate...and it seems to work, I might add.
Image
Image

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

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby Mot » Sat 17 May 2014 19:50

GBNATO wrote:
[EUG]MadMat wrote:
Mot wrote:Its not black and white, you are implying that bias means "on purpose", when in fact most often its not, usually its just a consequence of outside pressures, this is seen in our everyday life, it doesn't mean you are unprofessional or dumb, it just means the devs are human.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz25N72cQxs#t=168


Bravo, that is one of the most perfectly fitting links I have ever seen. :lol:

An artist with a URL.


I didn't even understand the connection... maybe someone could be kind enough to explain me.
"I suck at Wargame" or "I have to wait 30 minutes to pubstomp people" are not solid arguments to criticize the game... just saying.

frostie
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu 23 May 2013 02:57
Contact:

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby frostie » Sat 17 May 2014 19:51

All I see is pro NATO


Attack chopper
Ka50 < Tigre/Supercobra (Strela 2450m vs AIM-9 2800m)

Recon attack chopper
KA-52 < AH-64D Longbow (2 ATGM missiles vs 16 ATGM missiles)

MBT
T-80BU < M1a2/Leo2A5/Challenger

Cheap tank
Nothing to compare < Centurion mk5 (15 point tank with 9 armour and 1975m range)
Nearest would be T-55A with 7 armour and cost 25 points

Arty
Msta < AS90/M109A6

Cheap SHORAD
Strela 1M < VLRA Mistral (30 point v 35 point greater range and accuracy, twice as many missiles)
Strela 10M costs 50 points has same range but less accuracy

Medium SAM
OSA AKM < AMX-30 Roland (75points v 60 points and better accuracy, almost twice as many missiles plus 3 armour)

SHORAD
Tunguska < Chaparral (90 points v 70 points and more missiles)
Throw in a Vulcan for superior suppression

Bomber
Nothing < Nighthawk
Nothing compares < F-15D

Fighter
Su-27PU < Rafale
EuroFighter = Rafale make it so in game

terror51247
Major
Posts: 1851
Joined: Thu 27 Sep 2012 12:55
Contact:

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby terror51247 » Sat 17 May 2014 20:19

[EUG]MadMat wrote:
lemonsquid wrote:Oh I forgot that both sides were supposed to be fair and even across the board.

Indeed, they've won pretty much as many games since release.

And to refine that, the overall ratio which was 50,93% in favor of NATO was calculated as 54% since the last stats (about a week). That's still a long way from the "70%" to "90%" NATO win I keep reading.

I also keep reading that nobody plays "REDFOR" (reading "USSR", for people complaining the most about "REDFOR" usually means USSR instead). Over the last week, the most played decks were:
#1 ... USSR! (22%)
#2 ... USA! (16%)
#3 ... mixed decks, either PACT or NATO (I don't have the breaking).
Strangely the two "UP/underdog/no one ever plays them because Eurocorps OP/..." and the mixed decks, supposedly dead.

Seraphlord wrote:I don't hate madmat, but I do think he made a mistake by simply not locking the thread if he felt that way, instead of going off and saying how soviet fanboys are "number one" in a thread whining about pact and deleting those jabbing at the op.

I stand by it, this thread would've been locked if it was on the other foot.

And I hate being called bias. Myself personally or Eugen.
And we've already stated that, and establish the consequence of such accusation ...

For, who here in our position would think wise on a professionaly or even commercialy-wise to favor one side? Do you think favoring a nation, alliance, ... for political or personnal reasons would bring you customer, or on the contrary, piss most off?
So, calling us bias is basically calling us stupid, dumb or unprofessional in our face, on this privately owned forum.
We're open to critics, not accusation. If one comes in our garden to throw insults at us, we're kicking him out ...

Bluefor players dont play against themselves often.
How can anyone play to a faction's strength if the major flavour of that faction is overpriced units in every category?

User avatar
Kraxis
Major-General
Posts: 3909
Joined: Wed 10 Jul 2013 11:56
Contact:

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby Kraxis » Sat 17 May 2014 20:25

Mot wrote:
GBNATO wrote:
[EUG]MadMat wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz25N72cQxs#t=168


Bravo, that is one of the most perfectly fitting links I have ever seen. :lol:

An artist with a URL.


I didn't even understand the connection... maybe someone could be kind enough to explain me.

"Nono, you are not evil biased warmongers that want to ruin my nation/deck/game, you are just incompetent idiots."
[EUG]MadMat wrote:MadMat says so many things ... :twisted:

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 123 guests