BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

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

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Alcorr » Fri 16 May 2014 23:55

Gopblin wrote:Personally, I'm against the balancing the game on the very highest level of play.

That's because to me, game's primary purpose is provide entertainment for thousands of players, not a competitive sport for a couple dozen.

Heck, even in real competitive sports, the rules are made so that non-superhumans are able to play and train.

-----------

None of this means I don't think Redfor is UP. It pretty clearly is, in most unit categories anyway, even posters like LoneRifle admitted as much.

It's just that I think the conversation should be focused on the "pub play" issues, like the huge arty disparity, the inferiority of top tanks, and underwhelming/less cost-effective infantry, rather than "ranked" issues such as "unit X costs 5 pts more than Y, which leads to an insurmountable disadvantage of 50 points when using the ten times optimized start on Z map".

Best wishes,
Daniel


Those ARE ranked balance issues though...

Also, Competitive sports are balanced around the highest levels of game play because the best players know how to utilize any unit to its maximum potential. Is that not preferable to balancing the game around players with limited game knowledge? I would hope the advantages of the former are obvious.
Last edited by Alcorr on Fri 16 May 2014 23:58, edited 1 time in total.

Sleksa
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2265
Joined: Tue 14 May 2013 12:26
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Sleksa » Fri 16 May 2014 23:58

Gopblin wrote:Personally, I'm against balancing the game on the very highest level of play.

That's because to me, game's primary purpose is provide entertainment for thousands of players, not a competitive sport for a couple dozen.

Heck, even in real competitive sports, the rules are made so that non-superhumans are able to play and train.



I agree that entertainment is #1 priority and like I said earlier I simply want to see as much diversity in the game as possible.

However I doubt it doesn't matter much to the average player wether a unit is +5 or -5 points, whether there's 2 or 3 rocket jets per card or heli transports being 250 or 300kmh. However when a decent player is looking at the armory there are some completely obvious families of units that are completely trash (t72's, t62's, osas, leopards, m60's, line infantry, spaag) and some that are completely outclassing the alternative options in their role.

I honestly can't see how a average player would suffer or have less fun by making the bad families and units more attractive while ensuring that no 2 units in the armory are priced the same with different stats.
Image

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

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Alcorr » Sat 17 May 2014 00:04

Sleksa wrote:
Gopblin wrote:Personally, I'm against balancing the game on the very highest level of play.

That's because to me, game's primary purpose is provide entertainment for thousands of players, not a competitive sport for a couple dozen.

Heck, even in real competitive sports, the rules are made so that non-superhumans are able to play and train.



I agree that entertainment is #1 priority and like I said earlier I simply want to see as much diversity in the game as possible.

However I doubt it doesn't matter much to the average player wether a unit is +5 or -5 points, whether there's 2 or 3 rocket jets per card or heli transports being 250 or 300kmh. However when a decent player is looking at the armory there are some completely obvious families of units that are completely trash (t72's, t62's, osas, leopards, m60's, line infantry, spaag) and some that are completely outclassing the alternative options in their role.

I honestly can't see how a average player would suffer or have less fun by making the bad families and units more attractive while ensuring that no 2 units in the armory are priced the same with different stats.
this x 1000. Bad players don't know that one unit is obviously inferior to another so balancing around the lowest common denominator leads us to the current balance situation we have now.

Gopblin
Major-General
Posts: 3620
Joined: Thu 24 May 2012 19:10
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Gopblin » Sat 17 May 2014 00:17

Alcorr wrote:
Sleksa wrote:I agree that entertainment is #1 priority and like I said earlier I simply want to see as much diversity in the game as possible.

However I doubt it doesn't matter much to the average player wether a unit is +5 or -5 points, whether there's 2 or 3 rocket jets per card or heli transports being 250 or 300kmh. However when a decent player is looking at the armory there are some completely obvious families of units that are completely trash (t72's, t62's, osas, leopards, m60's, line infantry, spaag) and some that are completely outclassing the alternative options in their role.

I honestly can't see how a average player would suffer or have less fun by making the bad families and units more attractive while ensuring that no 2 units in the armory are priced the same with different stats.
this x 1000. Bad players don't know that one unit is obviously inferior to another so balancing around the lowest common denominator leads us to the current balance situation we have now.


Just to give one example, in ALB USSR arty was considered good by ranked players because Malkas could provide a very reliable sniping capability in small games and 2/card meant you didn't need a lot of deck points.

OTOH, in larger games that most people played, Malkas were fairly useless due to huge supply costs coupled with being CatA, which in a much more target-rich environment meant there was no way to feed em.

Admittedly this is more of a game mode issue than a skill level issue, but still a big difference between ranked and normal play.

Another example would be ATGM/gun switching trick being way more prevalent in Ranked due to better micro and fewer units per player, so to Ranked players ATGM tanks were more much more useful than to an average player.

Ditto for a lot of other multirole units like Hinds and Mig29, or multifuctional AA like Tunguska - to an average player that could not fully utilize all of their capabilities, they simply were overpriced.

Those are the sorts of issues I was talking about. I'd rather have the series balanced for midsize games with average players, than small games with superhumans. That said, either kind of balance would be preferable to what RD has now ;)

Best wishes,
Daniel
Nationality? - Russian.
Occupation? - No, no, just visiting.

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

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Alcorr » Sat 17 May 2014 00:46

Gopblin wrote:
Alcorr wrote:
Sleksa wrote:I agree that entertainment is #1 priority and like I said earlier I simply want to see as much diversity in the game as possible.

However I doubt it doesn't matter much to the average player wether a unit is +5 or -5 points, whether there's 2 or 3 rocket jets per card or heli transports being 250 or 300kmh. However when a decent player is looking at the armory there are some completely obvious families of units that are completely trash (t72's, t62's, osas, leopards, m60's, line infantry, spaag) and some that are completely outclassing the alternative options in their role.

I honestly can't see how a average player would suffer or have less fun by making the bad families and units more attractive while ensuring that no 2 units in the armory are priced the same with different stats.
this x 1000. Bad players don't know that one unit is obviously inferior to another so balancing around the lowest common denominator leads us to the current balance situation we have now.


Just to give one example, in ALB USSR arty was considered good by ranked players because Malkas could provide a very reliable sniping capability in small games and 2/card meant you didn't need a lot of deck points.

OTOH, in larger games that most people played, Malkas were fairly useless due to huge supply costs coupled with being CatA, which in a much more target-rich environment meant there was no way to feed em.

Admittedly this is more of a game mode issue than a skill level issue, but still a big difference between ranked and normal play.

Another example would be ATGM/gun switching trick being way more prevalent in Ranked due to better micro and fewer units per player, so to Ranked players ATGM tanks were more much more useful than to an average player.

Ditto for a lot of other multirole units like Hinds and Mig29, or multifuctional AA like Tunguska - to an average player that could not fully utilize all of their capabilities, they simply were overpriced.

Those are the sorts of issues I was talking about. I'd rather have the series balanced for midsize games with average players, than small games with superhumans. That said, either kind of balance would be preferable to what RD has now ;)

Best wishes,
Daniel


None of what you listed was anything wrong with a balance issue...just players either not knowing how to play or picking the wrong artillery cards for larger games.

User avatar
RangerPL
Major
Posts: 1909
Joined: Thu 27 Jun 2013 08:26
Location: ostrichland
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby RangerPL » Sat 17 May 2014 00:59

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.
Image

Gopblin
Major-General
Posts: 3620
Joined: Thu 24 May 2012 19:10
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Gopblin » Sat 17 May 2014 01:06

Alcorr wrote:None of what you listed was anything wrong with a balance issue...just players either not knowing how to play or picking the wrong artillery cards for larger games.


Most of it was simply scale issues: one FOB and two Malkas may be ok in 1v1, but decidedly not enough in 4v4; you can micro two ATGM tanks but not 12.
Plus the fact that pubbies are both less skilled and slower than the best ranked players.

One side's units being being more micro-intensive means that they're gonna get less effective as the number of units increases and the player can devote less attention to each individual unit.

Plus some units are just more suited to a certain game setup, e.g. as shown above supply hogging arty may be OK in a target-poor environment of ranked 1v1, but will quickly eat through all FOBs in pub 4v4, not to mention not having enough ROF to engage plentiful targets.

All of that very much has to do with balance.

Since ranked and pub are very different game setups, it's entirely possible for the balance situation to be quite different between them, and in fact we did see that quite a lot in ALB.

Of course, currently in RD, Redfor is somewhat UP in both, although for slightly different reasons.

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.


The issue is that Ranked and pub have different setups, so you're balancing the game on a mode most people don't play. Like, say, setting everybody's rules of outdoor soccer based on games that 10 very skilled people play inside someone's room.

Best wishes,
Daniel
Nationality? - Russian.
Occupation? - No, no, just visiting.

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

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Gneckes » Sat 17 May 2014 01:08

Gopblin wrote:Personally, I'm against balancing the game on the very highest level of play.

That's because to me, game's primary purpose is provide entertainment for thousands of players, not a competitive sport for a couple dozen.

Heck, even in real competitive sports, the rules are made so that non-superhumans are able to play and train.

-----------

None of this means I don't think Redfor is UP. It pretty clearly is, in most unit categories anyway, even posters like LoneRifle admitted as much.

It's just that I think the conversation should be focused on the "pub play" issues, like the huge arty disparity, the inferiority of top tanks, and underwhelming/less cost-effective infantry, rather than "ranked" issues such as "unit X costs 5 pts more than Y, which leads to an insurmountable disadvantage of 50 points when using the ten times optimized start on Z map".

Best wishes,
Daniel


See, the thing is, if you don't base balance on the highest levels of play, there's no point to having a highest level of play.
There's no need to improve as a player when the game balance does everything a good player would do for you.
Common sense shall thus be referred to as rare sense.

MENTORImage

Gopblin
Major-General
Posts: 3620
Joined: Thu 24 May 2012 19:10
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Gopblin » Sat 17 May 2014 01:33

Gneckes wrote:See, the thing is, if you don't base balance on the highest levels of play, there's no point to having a highest level of play.
There's no need to improve as a player when the game balance does everything a good player would do for you.


Not quite true. Read my previous post - most of the issue is that the Ranked and pub game modes are somewhat different. In my opinion, the balance should be focused on the latter.

Speaking of a game as a shooting competition, the pubbies are doing rapid-fire at large targets, and ranked players are sniping at small ones.
So pub complaints of "our guns have half the ammo and ROF" are often at odds with "pros" saying "What are you talking about, those guns are just as good at long-range sniping".

Since pubbies are the vast majority of players, the game should be balanced on them. That, or make large ranked games, all the way to 10v10s.

Best wishes,
Daniel
Nationality? - Russian.
Occupation? - No, no, just visiting.

User avatar
Yukikaze
Specialist
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri 13 Apr 2012 07:45
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Yukikaze » Sat 17 May 2014 01:53

Speaking of a game as a shooting competition, the pubbies are doing rapid-fire at large targets, and ranked players are sniping at small ones.
So pub complaints of "our guns have half the ammo and ROF" are often at odds with "pros" saying "What are you talking about, those guns are just as good at long-range sniping".


So as balance, if you listen to the pubbies : Buff the sniper weapon with better Rof and more Ammo ?
Or you would listen to "pros" : leave it be. It's not that you can't use it that's it is useless.
Image

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 70 guests

cron