BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

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

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Gopblin » Sat 17 May 2014 02:06

Yukikaze wrote:
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.


The first, obviously.

For example (talking about the ALB-Malka example above), decrease the supply cost of 203mm shells to where they are a viable alternative to 155mm arty and 120mm mortars in large pub games.

Or the much-discussed slight cost decrease of ATGM tanks: it may make them quite strong when using the ATGM-gun switching exploit, but since 99% of players don't use it, it will improve balance for 99% of games.

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

elitesix
Corporal
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat 14 Apr 2012 05:29
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby elitesix » Sat 17 May 2014 02:09

Balancing around a high level of play makes sense because it encourages players to play more to become better at the game - simply put, it adds depth. This increases interest in the game.

Balancing around casual play makes a game more shallow, because as players become better, they realize that there is much less diversity than initially apparent because some side/units are not balanced at high levels of play, and therefore the game becomes more boring as their is less variety and options in sides and units. This decreases interest in the game. This is exactly what I'm going through, and I suspect others as well.

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 02:26

Gopblin wrote:The first, obviously.

For example (talking about the ALB-Malka example above), decrease the supply cost of 203mm shells to where they are a viable alternative to 155mm arty and 120mm mortars in large pub games.

Or the much-discussed slight cost decrease of ATGM tanks: it may make them quite strong when using the ATGM-gun switching exploit, but since 99% of players don't use it, it will improve balance for 99% of games.

Best wishes,
Daniel


But with your suggestion the pubbies will still call for another buff it didn't answer their complaints. It still have less rof than the 150 mm and 120 mm.
In the meantime in the scope in competitive play your Malka is becoming a "must take unit"

In the end we will end with an high Rof + high Ammo + sniper arty because the casual don't know the usage of high caliber arty.


Edit: too much quote.
Last edited by Yukikaze on Sat 17 May 2014 02:36, edited 1 time in total.
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 02:35

Yukikaze wrote:But with your buff the pubbies will still call for another buff because it still have less rof than the 150 mm and 120 mm.


They won't, by definition.

If the units are balanced (say in terms of HE/minute/meter squared), the amount of OP/UP cries should be small and roughly similar on each side.

For example, no one is complaining (much) about the state of IFVs because they are roughly similarly capable for both sides.

In the meantime in the scope in competitive play your Malka is becoming a "must take unit"


Or a "bad" unit, but not balanced, by definition.

If you can't balance the units to be equally good in both modes, you gotta pick one where they will be balanced, and one where they won't be.

In my opinion, the balanced mode should be the one that 95%+ of people play.

Dixi.

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

elitesix
Corporal
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat 14 Apr 2012 05:29
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby elitesix » Sat 17 May 2014 02:58

Gopblin wrote:If you can't balance the units to be equally good in both modes, you gotta pick one where they will be balanced, and one where they won't be.

In my opinion, the balanced mode should be the one that 95%+ of people play.

Dixi.

Best wishes,
Daniel


Casual players don't know anything about balance. It's like asking the layman about their opinion on how to do open heart surgery. You gotta leave it to the experts.

But more importantly Daniel, no game has done the balanced for casual play and been as successful as those games done for competitive play (Starcraft I, II and many other games). So even if your proposition of casual play balance didn't have theoretical flaws (it does - as above causal player's don't know how fine tune balance), it fails in practice.

SeabeeDaddy
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon 17 Jun 2013 13:27
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby SeabeeDaddy » Sat 17 May 2014 03:37

Oh you are about to be sorry for being condescending.


Right then, I deserve that seeing as how I came off as condescending and arrogant, I am now going to try and refute what you said.

I'll give you an example, a very widely known example of blatant misuse of statistics, the american pay gap between males and females. The statistic says that females earn 77 cents per each 1 dollar a male earns, does this mean women are paid less than men? It must right? After all its so clear, its such a COLD HARD FACT!
or maybe... maybe...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender- ... lete-myth/


You're picking an example that obviously supports your view which is fine. But in this case I would determine it as "Cold Hard Fact" because of;

1) Eugen blatantly stated that the statistic did not account for many things or track many things like nations used, experience levels of players, so on and so forth.
2) It was a simple statistic, it was a percentage of which side won from the date that they started monitoring it. There were no hidden circumstances (I.e. of only the bottom 100 players, etc, etc.) It was pulled from ALL games. It was not skewed toward a certain side,

SeabeeDaddy wrote: on the win ratio which is close to 50% even and you completely disregard it and try to explain why it is so close?
It's half and half (almost) sure more wins in blufor but those can also be explained by many variables.


Oh wait... the fact that it isn't clearly 50% for each side can be explained by many variables, but everything else just can't... let's just disregard what we need and say that what favors our view is a COLD HARD FACT! Amazing logic!

No, they come out and say it is 50/49 in favor of blufor. And the immediate argument is that it is dependent on players. One that comes to mind that I have seen is that "Redfor" players that win are more experienced players who wish for just a challenge in Pub games and therefore that is the reason they even out. I could contend from my experience that that is a flawed argument because alot of pub games redfor players could happen to be noobs, or even new to redfor, which leads me into my next point.

SeabeeDaddy wrote:Red for demand a DIFFERENT STYLE of play in which most people cannot adapt to so they say "Hato is OP".

Please elaborate on this argument, otherwise I'm calling this absurd bullsmith.


I can elaborate. Its clear in the units, the most obvious example i can think of is the transport helo situation. Look at the majority of blufor trans helos and what do you see? Smaller, sometimes faster unarmored helos armed with an MG. Now look at Redfor, MI8s, HINDS, and generally gunships as transport helos. I think we could both agree that if you try to make a Blufor Airborne Deck and win 10/11 games with it and then try and make a Redfor Airborne deck and try to play it like the Blufor one, you will lose. Both sides, and even nationalities and type decks DEMAND to be played a specific way. Now I am going to go out on a limb, and a pretty good one at that and say from the majority of well spoken english on these forums and or the chat that the majority of players are from some sort of westernized nation. In which case it makes sense that they would play Blufor... They recognize the units. I'll even admit to it, I play Blufor better and can create a more useful deck on blufor quicker because I am familiar with the particular uses of the units.

SeabeeDaddy wrote:I don't understand it. People are thrilled about asymmetrical balance but when they lose they want balance completely

Always lovely to see the "they lose" argument, another example of a pointless speculative argument with zero value. Because you been tracking every single player who claims the unbalance to be real, and you checked their in game stats (see statistical fallacy below) and concluded they are all Redfor losers, right? right?


Nope, that would be impossible, but again I do quite a bit of lurking and reading and listening to what people say, and I feel I have seen enough in general to state that as soon as people lose they want some sort of balance change because their holy unit couldn't mow down hordes. A post I see all the time that infuriates me would be something along the lines of this "Well USSR has the KA-52 with SEAD missiles, so I believe Blufor should get one. Everyone, from what i have gathered, is drawn to this game for Asymetrical balance yet in the same breath sometimes, they want all the nations with arsenals that look the exact same to the point of when you choose a nation, all you are choosing are different looking units with the same stats. This part of my post wasn't directed at Redfor but more in general.

SeabeeDaddy wrote:why can't people just understand that you need to lay them differently which is why people hate Redfor so much.

Why can't you just understand that most people already know that and already know how to play with redfor? Do you have any proof or argument to prove your point? I mean other than subjective speculative nonsense...
But thank you for telling us, why we hate redfor, in fact I didn't even know I hate it and since you are telling me it must be true right? right?


Well from the majority of players that I have played with and or seen or heard about. It seems that the opposite is true of what you say. Alot of people try to play redfor without understanding that they demand a different style than which blufor can be played. And when they lose again they call for symmetrical balance. In essence what I am saying is Redfor isn't as UP as you would like to think it is. I am not a primarily Redfor player but I can say that when I do play with them I have done a pretty fine job of winning. So back to the age old answer of, Redfor being worse is a simple matter of L2P

My recommendation is to inform yourself before speaking about stuff you don't understand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics
"A misuse of statistics occurs when a statistical argument asserts a falsehood. In some cases, the misuse may be accidental. In others, it is purposeful and for the gain of the perpetrator. When the statistical reason involved is false or misapplied, this constitutes a statistical fallacy."
I hope this link isn't too much of a heavy reading for you.


Right, because what would all of these counterpoints be without an insult to me personally? Well more like multiple ones, I am not sure what exactly you were trying to accomplish with that, but it does make you look ever so mature. It isn't heavy reading at all compared to some of the books that you can read on these forums.

SeabeeDaddy wrote:Really? How ignorant can everyone be.

No no no, how ignorant can you be?
[/quote]

I admit that I did come off condescending and arrogant, and I formally apologize. The way that I put things can be very blunt at times. But in short, I have to defend the statistics that Eugen put out. They threw them out there, told you the shortfalls of them and left it at that. We are talking about a mere 1% difference over hundereds of thousands of games. And immediately it must be explained away by "Well the top tier players prefer Nato in ranked but they play Pact in Pub games for a challenge, which I think is a knee jerk reaction to what the statistic shows. Which is you are wrong.

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 03:49

SeabeeDaddy wrote:I admit that I did come off condescending and arrogant, and I formally apologize. The way that I put things can be very blunt at times. But in short, I have to defend the statistics that Eugen put out. They threw them out there, told you the shortfalls of them and left it at that. We are talking about a mere 1% difference over hundereds of thousands of games. And immediately it must be explained away by "Well the top tier players prefer Nato in ranked but they play Pact in Pub games for a challenge, which I think is a knee jerk reaction to what the statistic shows. Which is you are wrong.

It's not that the statistics are "imperfect". They're flat-out misleading and don't even represent actual gameplay, just a weighted average of every game mode.

You're objectively wrong, there's just no other way to put it. It's not a matter of opinion.

And that the ranked leaderboards are the way they are is no less meaningful than the overall winning %; the ranked games simply represent a subset of the overall population.
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 04:48

elitesix wrote:Balancing around a high level of play makes sense because it encourages players to play more to become better at the game - simply put, it adds depth. This increases interest in the game.

Balancing around casual play makes a game more shallow, because as players become better, they realize that there is much less diversity than initially apparent because some side/units are not balanced at high levels of play, and therefore the game becomes more boring as their is less variety and options in sides and units. This decreases interest in the game. This is exactly what I'm going through, and I suspect others as well.


This to the nth degree. If Eugen doesn't balance around the highest level of play people will lose interest in the game because there is less potential for individual improvement, and the player base will eventually flat line and begin to decline instead of steadily grow. As someone else pointed out as well, my interest in this game is already falling because of the large disparity between Blufor and Redfor and if the game is not seriously balanced around high level play then I expect more people to feel the same as time goes on.

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

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby solaris » Sat 17 May 2014 11:38

Alcorr wrote:This to the nth degree. If Eugen doesn't balance around the highest level of play people will lose interest in the game because there is less potential for individual improvement, and the player base will eventually flat line and begin to decline instead of steadily grow. As someone else pointed out as well, my interest in this game is already falling because of the large disparity between Blufor and Redfor and if the game is not seriously balanced around high level play then I expect more people to feel the same as time goes on.


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.
Anecdotes do not count for game balance.

Basil_pup
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 531
Joined: Fri 4 May 2012 18:42
Contact:

Re: BLUFOR/REDFOR win ratio ...

Postby Basil_pup » Sat 17 May 2014 12:24

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.
Image

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 95 guests