Profile of Grumpy

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 1960

General Information


Thread: The game is too damn FAST10 Dec 2015, 01:34 AM Jump back to quoted post9 Dec 2015, 23:56 PMLeodot I would expect that 4v4s will go much more than an hour, or 2, and that is not practicable. There are still only 500 VP's, and someone is almost always losing one every 3 seconds. Occasionally games go beyond an hour but that usually requires contested VP's to be uncapped at times. Resource inflation happens partly because capping is faster and partly because it's easy to build caches early in team games. Fuel and ammo drops help make it go faster also. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Time for Statistics9 Dec 2015, 14:33 PM Jump back to quoted post9 Dec 2015, 08:00 AMJohnnyB This is rubbish. Statistics said otherwise. LOL - please show us any statistics that showed the game was unbalanced before the patch. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Place your bets9 Dec 2015, 04:12 AM Jump back to quoted post8 Dec 2015, 07:02 AMRMMLz You didn't get the point mate. I'm talking about 90% of team players. True, I don't play 3s and 4s so I might be wrong. But as I said, more people play team games thus there are more noobs in that player base (again, the number is more but the percentage of scrubs might be the same between game modes). These people infest the forums while talking out of their asses. You've probably been to official forums. I was just stating my opinion on "why do people pick on team players?" not if team games are good or not in general. I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but the group that I most commonly play with are currently ranked in the 100-150 range, which probably puts me in that bottom 90%. Even at my "noob" level, your comments aren't true. Coordination wins team games, and rarely do they turn into arty-fests. Arty can't hold ground, and decent players counter it. Random 4v4's aren't fun, but AT can be, especially when matched against a good team. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Time for Statistics9 Dec 2015, 03:47 AM Jump back to quoted post9 Dec 2015, 02:30 AMDullahan I'm using made up numbers to explain the logic. The numbers of games varies wildly day to day due to the small sample size. December 6th OKW played 200 games and Brits only played 30 for example. 30 games isn't even enough to have a decent statistical representation of british players in the top 150. I also fucking hate the new OKW design and have been quite vocal about that, so don't accuse me of bias. I play everything pretty equally. I said the exact same thing when allies Op was all the rage. You didn't have to make up the numbers, they were there and don't support what you were trying to say. It looks like you used the 4v4 numbers for December 6 so I'll use those. The numbers of games played were: OKW 216, OST 133, SOV 144, USF 94 and UKF 30. That's 349 axis to 268 allied. If you assume that the game is balanced, then the top 150 should more or less split the 268 games. Assume then that the other 81 games were all won by the "better" axis players. That would have the axis wining 215 games of the 349 that they play, for a wining percentage of 62%. Instead, the percentage was around 89%. I'm not trying to make this personal and don't know you or anything about you. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Time for Statistics8 Dec 2015, 14:02 PM Jump back to quoted post8 Dec 2015, 03:14 AMDullahan Yes, it's actually pretty easy to follow if you're not retarded, asshole. Sentence 1: "If 1000 games are played with axis and 500 are played with allies in the top 150 players, that means that axis played 500 games against players who are outside that skill bracket." 1000-500 = 500. pretty easy to understand. I kept it extremely simple and clarified in detail in another post. ..... Your numbers are simply wrong. There are still more games played by the top 150 as allies than as axis. You're disregarding the stats because they show that the faction you like is really broken. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Time for Statistics8 Dec 2015, 01:45 AM Jump back to quoted post8 Dec 2015, 00:36 AMCieZ Uh... wat...? Are those even coherent sentences? I think I get what you're saying, but wow. That wording though. Why not just say that these graphs do not account for the high likelihood that the vast majority of these matches were played between players with a significant skill gap, therefore the data should be taken with a grain of salt. Anyways, I don't think anyone can defend the fact that OKW is vastly over performing this patch. Most of us could tell this was going to be the case just from reading patch notes. In 1v1's, the top 150 axis players (OKW + OST) played a total of 240 games. The top allied players (UKF, USF, & SOV) played a total of 252 games, so if number of games was the reason, 1v1 would be skewed in favor of allies. In fact, the numbers are the same across the board. This "number of games played" reason has about as much validity as the "cool uniform" or "bad guys" theory. There have been times that it did affect the results, but now isn't one of them. There are some things that I like about the patch. The pack howie and LeIG were ruining 1v1's and needed a nerf. I like the idea of not having the resource penalty on OKW but when they did that, they should have added the tech costs that other factions have to pay, meaning shreks, grenades, etc should now cost fuel. The Panzer Schwerer should cost at least as much fuel as the Major, etc, etc. Also, if they were going to do a major redesign, they should have left everything else alone and just changed OKW instead of all the changes. WTF was Relic thinking? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Place your bets8 Dec 2015, 00:12 AM Jump back to quoted post7 Dec 2015, 21:34 PMRMMLz That's a story for another thread as you said, but: .... You're theory crafting and clearly haven't played any medium or high level team games. If 4v4 was a RNG arty-fest, do you really think that there would be win streaks like Jadame, GDot, Skabink, 102 game (or whatever current) win streak? Do you think they build arty better than anyone else and that's how they win? In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Place your bets7 Dec 2015, 23:56 PM Jump back to quoted post4 Dec 2015, 18:15 PM__deleted__ Game is meant to be balanced for 1vs1 and 2vs2. Please dont take 4vs4 win charts so serious , these game modes are for fun Really? There are maybe 1000 1v1 or 2v2 players total. When I search for 1v1's, there are often less than 10 people searching. On top of that, most of those players don't buy DLC. If you take the 1000 (which is a generous estimate) times an average $0, you get $0 to pay for continued development and support (slightly less in Canadian dollars). You're a strategist. Do you really think that is a business model that Relic can sustain? The last patch had win rates that were balanced across all factions within 10-12% across all game sizes. Axis players whined hard because 2v2's were around +12% for allies. Somehow, a 70% differential is okay when it favors Axis. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: 2v2 and upward are totally broken4 Dec 2015, 23:39 PM Jump back to quoted post4 Dec 2015, 23:06 PMNapalm Cool uniforms, etc. No, it wasn't the uniforms. It was because people like to play the bad guys on the internet. At first, Nazi's were bad, but only in 3v3+. Then the British came along, and they were bad. But somehow, they're no longer bad, probably having something to do with them getting cost increases and armor nerfs. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Timed Explosive Charge and Satchel useless agains buildings24 Nov 2015, 02:42 AM Jump back to quoted post24 Nov 2015, 02:12 AMCuddletronic That's not what I meant. Any Squad inside the build does receive damage. This issue is in the database, I don't have an ETA on the fix. Sorry Sorry, I thought you were saying something else. Thank you for the clarification. In: COH2 Bugs