REDFOR advantages

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

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby Gneckes » Sat 17 May 2014 02:03

Thanks for the reply MadMat!
I know calling you, or the rest of the team biased is just dumb,
However, some of us feel our concerns are not being taken seriously.

Also, nobody (well, no post I read at least) was saying there was a 70% to 90% BLUFOR win rate. What has been said was: Top Ranked players play 80% to 95% BLUFOR. And since they are at the top of the Leaderboard, we can assume they win a majority of their games.

I guess it really comes down to whether you want to balance the game for "pub stomping" lobby games, or for Ranked. Personally, I'm hoping it is the latter since, from my experience as a player of RTS games, balancing for top levels of play makes for the better game. But of course, the choice is not mine to make.
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: REDFOR advantages

Postby Gopblin » Sat 17 May 2014 02:12

Gneckes wrote:...
I guess it really comes down to whether you want to balance the game for "pub stomping" lobby games, or for Ranked. Personally, I'm hoping it is the latter since, from my experience as a player of RTS games, balancing for top levels of play makes for the better game. But of course, the choice is not mine to make.


You can see that I strongly support balancing the game on pubs (detailed in this thread):
viewtopic.php?f=155&t=45275&start=280

However, I believe Redfor is actually UP in pubs as well. It's just not nearly as obvious because there are way more factors affecting winrates there, most notably uneven skill levels in the playerbase and people playing suboptimal decks.

In other words, let'say the best BLU deck will will against the best RED deck 75% of the time (both in pubs and ranked). That would be way easier to notice in Ranked, where everyone plays the best decks, as opposed to pubs, where say only 20% of people play the best decks.

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

Guggy
General
Posts: 8645
Joined: Thu 17 Nov 2011 02:53
Location: peaceful skeleton realm
Contact:

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby Guggy » Sat 17 May 2014 02:14

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

User avatar
Mako
General
Posts: 7352
Joined: Sun 5 May 2013 20:00
Location: Cascadia
Contact:

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby Mako » Sat 17 May 2014 02:16

As far as advantages that actually matter:

-Flame SF troops

-Fire rocket launchers

-Many more 2800m ATGMs

-2975m HJ-9 and Vikhr

-Su-100 and Su-122-54

-USSR's R-77 w/40+% ECM horde



Aaand that's about it.
If there's two kinds of players, those that like challenges and those that want a fair game, pubstomps should make everyone happy.

User avatar
SecularSuicide
Master Sergeant
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue 8 Apr 2014 17:32

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby SecularSuicide » Sat 17 May 2014 02:19

[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 ...


Well Said!
And not surprising to me in the least!

User avatar
Mako
General
Posts: 7352
Joined: Sun 5 May 2013 20:00
Location: Cascadia
Contact:

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby Mako » Sat 17 May 2014 02:21

I'd really like to see some more competitive/tryhard players weighing in on this thread.
If there's two kinds of players, those that like challenges and those that want a fair game, pubstomps should make everyone happy.

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 02:27

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


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?

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

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby Gopblin » Sat 17 May 2014 02:39

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


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?


See the linked thread I posted above.

Since different things matter in competitive play vs pub play (due to different game setups mostly, but also different skill levels), the state of balance may very well be different between these two modes.

The issue is that I think that if the game can't be equally balanced for both pubs and Ranked, it should be focused on being balanced for the 99% of players that aren't the very top.

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

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 07:20

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


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.
Image

User avatar
Mako
General
Posts: 7352
Joined: Sun 5 May 2013 20:00
Location: Cascadia
Contact:

Re: REDFOR advantages

Postby Mako » Sat 17 May 2014 07:33

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


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...
If there's two kinds of players, those that like challenges and those that want a fair game, pubstomps should make everyone happy.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kaiwaters, Shifu and 88 guests