Profile of Spinflight

Yeah I've seen that site, as I say though top150 ( sure it was top250 when I first saw it which is strange) is statistical garbage. Less than 1% of player base?

As I say it would be interesting to see the overall balance and the balance between factions for under rank 5, 10 etc.

Come to think of it, and consider this a suggestion too.

Give all players ELO ratings as in chess. There are parallels here, though clearly chess is balanced over two games but different openings do have different effects depending upon level.

King's Gambit for instance is quite deadly up to about 150 ( effectively the third level as losing to a player 50 ranks below you is regarded as nothing but a fluke). Above 150 it is rarely played and easily countered. Similar story with many weird and wonderful openings, Grandmasters understand them whereas novices wouldn't know whether they were in a good position or not!

For instance if you took a hypothetical rook away from one player but gave him 5 extra pawns would that be balanced? It might depend upon rank, Grandmasters might trounce international masters more heavily than normal due to early game power, novices who rarely got to the late game might prefer the extra defence just to stay in the fight and losing a unit they hardly used.

I work in stats and can tell you categorically that only showing stats for the top x players is statistical garbage. I have no idea whether the game is balanced or not as I suck rather badly but if you were going to take a cross section of the data the top x percent is almost willfully dishonest.

A balanced game would allow novices, intermediates, good players and tournament players to compete on an even keel across factions. I recently found that one doctrinal ability had been nerfed in 4 different ways which is a massive change, an almost balanced game would only require tiny changes, though the latest patch notes don't give much confidence that it is anywhere near that state.

Note however that I'm not complaining about balance or OPness as people seem to call it. Merely that the proof is in the stats and therefore those stats should be published and sliced only across different ability levels ( seems there are 20 levels of ability defined in the game?).

I'm gutted to be honest.

Could have just found out for myself that it was crap but instead read the forums and guides, noted that the accuracy buffs should stack with vet buffs, figured out which vehicles got good accuracy and received vet buffs and then tried it in game.

Frankly that is about 15 games I've played throwing away my first 75 munitions on something which is only useful as a luxury in late game.

Guess my multi UC, multi AEC builds didn't just fail due to my poor gameplay.

The number of times a couple of PIATs could have saved me...

Oooooh I could crush a grape!

"Don't avoid like the plague. Still one of the most engaging and fun games there is."

I'm rather unlikely to give more money to Relic, I'm starting to think at least one of their testers ( devs tend to have higher professional standards) was once gang raped by someone with an English accent without even the courtesy of a reach around or a cup of tea afterwards.

"I think you might like COH1."

Mate of mine told me to avoid COH1 like a plague because relic nerfed the Brits into the ground. I think he played tournaments, said no-one ever chose Brits even at the highest level, he didn't mention the Soviets though.