In literal terms, you're stating nothing at all. You're making a comparison but aren't saying what you're comparing to.
If we assume your "too high" has an implicit "to be balanced" on the end of it, then you're stating an opinion.
A no doubt widely held opinion, but an opinion nonetheless.
Now you simply have moved way past a balance thread into philosophy. There are Philosopher that argue that "absolute truth" exist and those argue it does not. You can read their opinions, justification and argue with them.
For me it is quite clear that in the current system an lmg-42 with damage 1.000, accuracy 100% and penetration 1.000 would be simply be game breaking and thus those values are simply "too high".
I don't have to establish what the upper limit is before I can safely make that claim.
If you do not like the term replace it with what ever suits you, it works for me fine and I will continue using it.
Once more have a nice day. |
It isn’t just semantics. Balancing is largely subjective and there’s nothing wrong at all with having an opinion on something. The problem is when you start to state something which is an opinion as an objective fact. It shuts down the conversation.
The trick here is to state why you have the opinion you have, possibly present solutions, state why you think those solutions would actually be solutions. Just stating, “My opinion is fact!” over and over isn’t very helpful and just comes off as arrogant, or worse, ignorant.
You feel the Churchill’s acceleration is too high right? Why? Because it’s higher than the KV-1? Why do you feel this is a relevant metric? Given the Churchill’s acceleration, speed, damage, armor, abilities, why do you think focusing on its acceleration is the right approach? What even is the supposed problem you’re trying to address? I’m not asking sarcastically, I’m genuinely curious.
"Giving LMG-42 damage 1.000 accuracy, 100% and penetration 1.000 would too high."
Am I stating an opinion or fact?
Do I have to establish an upper limit before I can state that? |
Lago is correct here. With out predefined limits, the second you say “too” it becomes your opinion. Hell, even with predefined limits ordained by Relic, that’s still just Relic’s opinion of how a unit should work and the community often disagrees with Relic’s opinion.
Objective is: The Churchill’s acceleration value is 3.5. (This is an observable, repeatable fact taken from game files)
Subjective is: The Churchill’s acceleration of 3.5 is too high. You have now applied your opinion to the matter.
Not really it is too high for a vehicle with a role a slow heavy infatry support tank compared to other tank and especially other heavy Tank.
It more than double than what KV-1 has for particular reason and that make its simply "too high".
Now pls stop semantics pointless arguing and move on. |
I'm not sure you understand what 'too' means in this context.
It's comparative. It can't exist in isolation. You have to be too something to something.
If a theme park ride only allows people under 180 cm tall to ride it, and a man is 185 cm, then he is too tall to ride it.
You're saying the rear armour (or rotation speed or acceleration) is too high to be balanced, yes?
If that is true, then there is a maximum rear armour that is not too high to be balanced.
For that to be objectively true, that maximum balanced rear armour value has to be defined objectively.
Ok at this point you are simply trolling and turning this into a personal vendetta.
I clearly said compare the acceleration and rotation of the Churchill with other vehicles so I am fully aware what too high means.
Since you don't seem to want to compare it let me give you some numbers:
Churchill Accel: 3.5
aec_armoured_car_mp Accel: 3
centaur_aa _mk2_mp Accel: 1.8
comet_mp Accel: 2.2
cromwell_mk4_75mm_mp Accel: 2.6
sherman_firefly_m4a2_mp Accel: 1.6
valentine_observation_mp Accel: 2.6
Now that value is clearly objectively and undisputed TOO HIGH especially taking into account that role of vehicle.
Have a nice day. |
Yes, you do. It's in the very definition of the word.
If something is too high, then it's higher than is acceptable.
If it's higher than is acceptable, then there is a maximum value which is acceptable.
To define something as too high without subjectivity, you must define that height without subjectivity.
I am not sure why you want to start on semantics. I can say a person is too tall if he is 40 cm taller than the average without knowing what the high of the tallest person that existed.
Again try to keep it on subject and simply compare the acceleration and rotation of other vehicles with that of the Churchill. |
No.
In order to define something as objectively too high, you need an objective maximum height.
We don't have one.
No you do not. You simply need the value of the unit with similar role that you use as benchmark.
Tell you what, find what unit have more acceleration and rotation than Churchill and we can continue this. |
In order to prove the Churchill's rear armour is too high, you need to define the maximum acceptable rear armour value.
If you can do that without using a single opinion, then I will accept your conclusion as objective.
Until then, it is subjective.
Let put aside the rear armor for sec.
Do you agree that acceleration, rotation, HP are objectively too high?
Do you agree that stock defensive smoke is a big advantage especially in an already very durably vehicle? |
Yes that is what I said.
However, that would still do nothing for bad commanders such as USF's Tactical Support Co or Rifle Co which aren't picked purely because they do not offer enough and have some bad abilities or units.
If
top meta commanders are performing at 110%,
decent-good commanders are performing at 90-100% and
bad commanders are performing at 70-80%,
and you'd nerf the top meta commanders down to 100% to establish the average power level, then you'd still need to revamp the bad commanders towards 90-100% in order for them to be able to compete with the other 90-100% commanders.
For example Tactical Support would always be a bad pick, no matter how much you'd nerf other commanders or buff stock units, as long as the Calliope remained a bad unit.
True but establishing what 100% is, it the actual difficult part. Nerfing the 110% does allot more in establishing the 100% than buffing the 80%.
In your example if one has have to chose between burring an 80% or nerfing an 110% what the more effective change?
If one buffs the 80% to 100% the commander will stop being used after the initial change because people will still have a better chance winning when using the 110% commander.
If one nerf the 110% to 100% now more commander are used and easier to establish what power the commander should be and thus it is easier to buff the 80% commander to that level.
I am afraid we drifting off topic now and we should start another thread if this debate need to continue.
Here are some suggestion from another thread:
Imo the commander approach should have the following aims:
1) Balance commander abilities while bringing similar abilities inline taking into account faction.
2) Balance commander themselves by removing abilities combination that are simply too strong.
3) Keep abilities and commanders to a "theme" as much as possible
... |
I think we're overthinking things here. Nerf what feels like deserves nerfs, and buff what feels like deserves buffs. Why ONLY nerf spec ops or ONLY buff partisans when you could just... do both?
Edit: There are less top tier commanders than there are bad commanders. So nerfing top tier commanders probably helps more than buffing all of the many weak ones. Think of OKW in this (false) dichotomy: you could nerf spec ops, or you could buff firestorm, scavenge, and luftwaffe. The former achieves more with less. Again though, why not both?
Doing both is better on the other hand the limited resources and scope seem to limit what can be changed so one probably has to prioritize. |
Nerfing the top meta commanders would be good to make all the good-but-non-meta commanders a more popular choice, like how OKW Elite Armor is currently a very good commander but ultimately outshined by Special Operations (in top 1v1 meta at least). If you'd nerf Spec Ops, Elite Armor will become more popular. There's no denying that nerfing the top meta commanders to make the decent-to-good commanders more popular would be good for the game.
However that wouldn't solve anything for the straight up bad commanders, which would still be bad if the top meta commanders were to take a hit. There's no going around the fact that they'd need to get some revamps.
True, but the Sturm Offizier is in Breakthrough so with the upcoming Panzerfussiliers change you'd be likely to have a lot of Pfussies which do not get passive healing with vet. Therefor it could be interesting to let the Offizier heal other squads. The unit could have an additional role - besides combat - by serving as a more cost effective alternative to medics or med crates. Although that might be a bit too much.
Increasing the number of meta commander actually helps identifying balance issues and that help improve the game and thus it might help all commanders. It also make the game more interesting and fun.
For instance lets take a fictitious example.
OKW tanks and obers are UP but is the majority can win when playing OKW using the Special OP that does not require T4 so the win rates of OKW are balance when using the specific commander. That would make difficult to identify the issue with OKW tanks and Obers.
The objectives of commander revamp should be to increase the number of commander used and not simply replace special ops with a another commanders. That would also help establish a base line of what the power level of commander for each faction should be.
So far revamps seem to have targeted the commanders least used imo it is time to also target the commanders mostly used. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
Heartless Jäger 
