Profile of VindicareX

Avatar Area

Offline unknown
Posts: 312

General Information
Broadcast: https://www.twitch.tv/vindicarex
Steam: 76561198006600003


Thread: Allied 1v1 Dominace4 Jan 2016, 00:44 AM Jump back to quoted post4 Jan 2016, 00:37 AMJohnSmith Well, you do not have to post in this community if you so strongly believe with this kind of arrogant and overly aggressive tone that we are not worth it. I'm on a crusade for today. Do you care to offer your opinion why I'm wrong? If I know one thing, people don't listen to benign voices of reason (which this thread definitely could've been), but vociferous arguments rammed down their throats that challenge their beliefs. Let's not forget that I wasn't the one who started this shit-show. I'm simply responding to the mindless trolls who say I'm wrong without a reasoned argument. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Allied 1v1 Dominace4 Jan 2016, 00:30 AM Jump back to quoted post4 Jan 2016, 00:04 AMJohnSmith Gosh, I thought Vindi was quite a good player, but he turned out to be quite an arrogant guy :/ I could say the exact thing towards the people who think I'm wrong. They gave little input besides "troll post" or some remark about x/y easily proves you wrong without further explanation of that reasoning. And I'm the arrogant one? I feel like a martial arts master arguing with a street hoodlum about the best way in how to fight. My evidence is inherent: I participate in the highest level of play in this game. That's not arrogance, that's a fact. Hell, the only real counter arguments I've received were stats showing a general balanced state of the game (which it mostly is), but which I already pointed out are not representative of high level play. I will concede that relic has been doing a good job balancing this game, so this trend that I pointed out has not been as exacerbated as it has been in the recent past. The stats I've been bombarded with show exactly that the game is largely balanced. I'm talking about specific match ups and specific map design. Imagine you were an outside observer of a video game and never played it before: who would you trust on balance game-play issues? The dime-a-dozen casual players or the few experts? This thread is exactly why I don't post on this damnable forum: because some scrub who thinks he knows more about this game than the experts will never relent in their opinions, regardless of any argument or position presented to them. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Allied 1v1 Dominace3 Jan 2016, 23:33 PM If you would actually read my posts, you would see I'm talking about small balance issues that would otherwise be undetectable in any other game and only really present themselves in high-level play. As such, you can have a sample size of a billion games and players and it wouldn't mean a thing if none of them were good. - As it so happens, I tend to play this game a lot. I also spectate a lot of high level games and streams. And of the majority of games I've seen, my position seems to be true. You need only look back at past tournaments to see how this general trend of allied early game dominance rings true. Hell, just look at the current ESL matches and see for yourself how often allies win. Your last sentence implies you want to balance the game for the nubs, not the pros, which I already explained my thoughts on above why such an approach is self-defeating and short-sighted. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Allied 1v1 Dominace3 Jan 2016, 23:15 PM Jump back to quoted post3 Jan 2016, 22:30 PMKatitof You believe 20-30 people sample is relevant for balance evaluation for RTS game. If you aren't "totally off base" here, then you're just completely nuts. Quite simply: you're an idiot spewing swill. By what grounds am I wrong? Based on your experience? How does that experience trump mine? I suppose next you'll say that my efforts and participation in their games and its tournaments disqualify me from making comments on balance (comments that are largely accurate, I'll add). I suppose someone with over 7k posts will usually speak on impulse rather than rational thought. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Allied 1v1 Dominace3 Jan 2016, 23:02 PM Jump back to quoted post3 Jan 2016, 22:16 PMBasti You realize that the majority of players, so non-top 20 by your definition, face other problems? Now, should relic make the game more enjoyable for 20 guys or several thousands...? So Relic should cater to their whims and whines? What's the better message: make changes based on scrubs getting frustrated facing the cluster-fuck that is 4v4? Or make changes based on good play, where all units are used to a greater potential? What do these different approaches imply? One implies that if you whine and cry enough, that annoying rifleman blob or Elefant that you just can't beat will be nerfed so you can continue your (inferior) strategies. It implies that you don't need to self-improve. that you don't need to change because the game changes for you. The other implies that, with practice and effort, you can overcome that rifle blob or Elefant with smart positioning, traps, flanks, etc (read: micro). It implies that you need to overcome obstacles yourself. This is how every game, ever, works. Video games are different, they have the unique opportunity for rapid and constant updates to improve gameplay to achieve "balance;" but they still share in common with any form of game or sport that you win by improving your skills, not changing the rules. Perhaps you are content in wallowing in self-pity and incompetence when faced with obstacles. Fine. That's your choice. But how does changing the game to balance your skill level effect others? Especially at the highest level of play. I don't think Relic would agree with that style of balancing (particularly since they have shown continued support and drive to make a competitive, while deep, RTS game). I know for a fact Blizzard doesn't balance their games like that either. Think about the effects of your wants before you go around claiming that thousands of people don't matter. They have every opportunity to play better (even slightly) each game. And if they just don't possess, or never will possess, the skill to play - well that's their problem. In fact, I don't even know why I post here - community forums are always full of scrubs and other jack offs whining and complaining about everything when they have very little perception and awareness of what the game is truly like. It was like this in DOW2, It was like this in SC2 (still is), and still in CoH2 (and there it will always likely remain). Why do you think Blizzard and Relic form private groups specifically inviting competent and skilled players on balance input? But even still, the crying of forums demanding change can even influence developers too, as these smaller communities skew the perception of balance with a lack of high skill players telling both players and developers otherwise. /rant In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Allied 1v1 Dominace3 Jan 2016, 21:56 PM Jump back to quoted post3 Jan 2016, 20:00 PMGrim avoids the subject of UKF UKF is radically different than USF and Sovs, so they aren't the topic of my post. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Allied 1v1 Dominace3 Jan 2016, 21:53 PM I like how people think Im totally off base when I'm literally better at this game than 99% of the people here. LoL gg internet. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Allied 1v1 Dominace3 Jan 2016, 19:24 PM Jump back to quoted post3 Jan 2016, 19:08 PMThe amazing Chandler If they tone down the early game advantage for Allies (witch i am fine with) then they should also tone down the late game advantage for Axis. I agree, to maintain the general balance. I would like to see better allied late game (which Relic has already been improving, probably due to all the team game schmucks complaining). I think they can also accomplish this with better map design In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Allied 1v1 Dominace3 Jan 2016, 18:38 PM If you read my post, you see I was mostly referring to high level (more like top 20) play. IMO, anyone not top 50 is basically not high level. Even so, ladder rankings are not a perfect indicator of skill, as anyone who plays enough and is somewhat good can achieve a high rank. This high level play applies to tournament play, where those advantages actually matter in even match ups. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Allied 1v1 Dominace3 Jan 2016, 18:17 PM I'd like to address to issue with Allied factions in 1v1 - particularly soviets and USF. I wouldn't call them OP, per se, but they have noticeable advantages in the early game that can quickly allow them to snowball and heavily contain the germans from establishing any sort of foothold. I'll quote myself from another post to explain: Jump back to quoted post24 Sep 2015, 05:34 AMVindicareX Does no one feel like Allies' early game is too powerful? Seems like the majority of tourney games are won by Allies because their play style is easier (build a horde of units early game, dominate map, push momentum). I.e. Face roll. USF works almost entirely this way: strong early game but weaker late game which leads to a lot of games being decided in this first 10 min. - Granted the advantage is small - I think balance is in a very good spot - but is exacerbated in high level play where the flow of resources can stack up quickly against you. - I didn't see much British play in OCF and for good reason: it's like playing Germans! You're early game hangs on a razor's edge and you try to fortify to make it to the big guns. Why go through that when you have a strategy that basically guarantees 60-100% of map control as Soviets/USF. It has always felt like Germans are on the back foot. One wrong move and your defensive line crumbles and you'll never get the map back since Germans are generally awful at assaulting positions. I mostly attribute this to map design and general army design: German infantry tend to do better at long range and in cover But Allied infantry have an advantage is most other scenarios (medium/short range, no squads in cover, assaulting positions). Because of this, small maps with lots of corners and shot blockers (most of the 1v1 map pool) generally give the allies an edge since it's very easy to run around with Riflemen/Cons and just charge any Grenadier you see. Germans, on the other hand, rely extremely heavily on positioning. If you're MG is not far enough back but not far enough front, Grens not in cover, no AT gun at 8 min (to counter halftracks), tight spacing - whatever - there's all sorts of things you need to execute very well to stop the Allied assault. Why do you think Mechanized Assault Doctrine or Close Air support are so popular? It's because they cover the German weakness in teching very well. While their teching price is fine, it gets very hard to try to even get tech 3 as Ostheer because Germans are usually so fuel starved from low map control. Germans play a lot like Space Marines from DOW2 (and if anyone played that game you would know SM were one of the weakest races throughout most of that games history) - they have a very powerful army when supporting each other, great late game units, but extremely weak at independent missions (Sending units solo) and mobility. This forces Germans to send 100% of units to a certain defensible sector of the map right off the bat or else risk losing all the map since your squads will generally lose to their Allied counterparts. It's hardly surprising the more mobile and aggressive factions do better in a game where you must fight across the map to win instead of being able to hunker down in a base. It was like this in DOW2 (Where Eldar and Tyranids were the most competitive factions, both armies extremely mobile and cost effective) and it's like this in CoH2. However, some maps work very well for Germans because they are big, open, and defensible (especially Langreskaya). Easy to spot enemy advances, dependable cutoff, "natural" VP, wide areas for MGs to take full advantage of their range. Most maps though have a lot of shot blockers (especially around critical cuttoff points) or bottlenecking points of advance that make it really hard to push out as Germans with your long range army. TL, DR: Allies have early game advantage that puts the game in their initiative (a fact shown in their dominance in tournament games among high skilled players). In: COH2 Balance