WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

urogard
Brigadier
Posts: 3057
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby urogard » Mon 5 Feb 2018 00:54

FrangibleCover wrote:Absolutely, but you're making my point for me. That's an inconsistency, the prices aren't consistent. That is not imbalance, it does not make the Jaguar unreasonably cost-efficient or powerful. Indeed, the Jaguar is terrible. Time spend fixing this inconsistency would not be time spent making Wargame a better game. It wouldn't even be time spent making Wargame a more realistic game

Any situation where you pay less or more for a unit than other equivalent units cost is an imbalance by definition.
Imbalance doesn't require power, it doesn't require OP'nes, it simply requires over-/underperformance.

It's the same inconsistency that's making the Su-27SK unreasonably underperforming (and was even worse before the patch that buffed it a bit), do you want to argue that fixing that plane wouldn't make Wargame a more balanced game?
How about the T-80A? Did its availability fix, after I highlighted it along with the other tanks, make Wargame a more balanced game?
What about the B-5? Would fixing that discrepancy, make Wargame a more balanced game?
What if it's a ~100-110 point ASF, that's the best a particular nation has at its disposal, that's priced inconsistently? Would fixing its price make Wargame a more balanced game?
What about a particular 80 pts tank that has too low availability compared to its counterparts? Would fixing its availability to be in line make Wargame a more balanced game?

You're creating an extremely dangerous slippery slope, where suddenly fixing inconsistencies will not be based on how obviously wrong the numbers for a unit are but based on someone's subjective opinion how "influential" a particular unit is for the gameplay.
How is that any better from the usual autofellatio people engage in when debating which unit to hit with the nerfbat because they got roflstomped by it in the last game?

Subjective shit doesn't work, you can almost universally argue against whatever suggestion is up for debate and you can never make progress. Fix the price discrepancies, because those are easy to identify, easy to fix and any debate about any discrepancy will be a one sided statement outlining their existence (case in point: Malka/Pion right now).

FrangibleCover wrote:you have expressed no dissatisfaction with the stats.

Which stats? Price/availability/veterancy are a stat. I've expressed clear dissatisfaction about them.

If you're talking about why I haven't suggested overhauling units which nobody uses well then ...
viewtopic.php?f=155&t=60861
And also I did, in dozens of threads, use the search function.

FrangibleCover wrote:If you won't fight a 1v1, we can do it on your team-game terms. Me, melanin and whoever else we need against you and however many of your friends you need to get a game size you're comfortable with. I'm sure we could round up another eight.

Had you asked a year ago, we could have had some nice games. However the people I used to play with haven't even touched wargame in 7-9 months or more.

HrcAk47 wrote:This just shows that you're all bark and no bite. Many people calling you to a 1v1. You've been whipped raw with a glove to your face. What will you do?

:lol:

high_melanin
Sergeant
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu 25 Jan 2018 12:02
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby high_melanin » Mon 5 Feb 2018 00:59

urogard wrote:Any situation where you pay less or more for a unit than other equivalent units cost is an imbalance by definition.


Nope. The balance is between decks not between units.

urogard
Brigadier
Posts: 3057
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby urogard » Mon 5 Feb 2018 01:05

high_melanin wrote:
urogard wrote:Any situation where you pay less or more for a unit than other equivalent units cost is an imbalance by definition.

Nope. The balance is between decks not between units.

Wrong game my friend.
This is not Steel Division forum.

high_melanin
Sergeant
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu 25 Jan 2018 12:02
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby high_melanin » Mon 5 Feb 2018 01:06

urogard wrote:
high_melanin wrote:
urogard wrote:Any situation where you pay less or more for a unit than other equivalent units cost is an imbalance by definition.

Nope. The balance is between decks not between units.

Wrong game my friend.
This is not Steel Division forum.


From what you write, you are playing the wrong game.

urogard
Brigadier
Posts: 3057
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby urogard » Mon 5 Feb 2018 01:12

high_melanin wrote:From what you write, you are playing the wrong game.

I meant to say that you're probably mixing up the games because units in Wargame are priced based on their performance and their availability derives from their price and class, not which deck they can get picked in.
In Steel division decks have different incomes, that's why I guessed you had mixed up the games.

Alternatively just show me a quote of where EUG mentioned pricing being based on country as opposed to unit ability.

high_melanin
Sergeant
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu 25 Jan 2018 12:02
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby high_melanin » Mon 5 Feb 2018 01:15

urogard wrote:


You claimed stuff, you have to prove it. Why don't we solve this in a 1vs1? If you know the game better you will win.

urogard
Brigadier
Posts: 3057
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby urogard » Mon 5 Feb 2018 01:47

high_melanin wrote:You claimed stuff, you have to prove it.

Prove your claim then.
high_melanin wrote:The balance is between decks not between units.

Afterwards let me know which of my claims is left unproven.

high_melanin
Sergeant
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu 25 Jan 2018 12:02
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby high_melanin » Mon 5 Feb 2018 02:21

urogard wrote:Any situation where you pay less or more for a unit than other equivalent units cost is an imbalance by definition.

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8655
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby Fade2Gray » Mon 5 Feb 2018 05:55

urogard wrote:
Fade2Gray wrote:I'll chip in this about SF:

They do come out more in team games where players can specialize. Some maps and some settings just beg for SF spam, like on DDay (especially on the water front) or Meme Ridge (city grind).

Haters will claim 1v1/2v2 ranked is the only true game mode :lol:

I wasn't exactly giving you an endorsement...
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

urogard
Brigadier
Posts: 3057
Joined: Sun 4 May 2014 13:31
Contact:

Re: WG4 Vision: What works, what doesn't, what needs improved?

Postby urogard » Mon 5 Feb 2018 13:36

Fade2Gray wrote:
urogard wrote:
Fade2Gray wrote:I'll chip in this about SF:

They do come out more in team games where players can specialize. Some maps and some settings just beg for SF spam, like on DDay (especially on the water front) or Meme Ridge (city grind).

Haters will claim 1v1/2v2 ranked is the only true game mode :lol:

I wasn't exactly giving you an endorsement...

Does neither matter, nor does it make my statements any less true.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests