I was joking, but you know, the low elo players are the majority. They favor closed maps, they want to boom and mass strong units. The units I mentioned are the ones they usually can’t deal with. They might know what to do but they can’t perform it in game.
3 Likes
As a Team Game only player I totally agree with your claim. imho 1v1 player and Team Game player are two totally different species that dev should balance them separately
2 Likes
Sorry but you are completely wrong
1 Like
Oh we noticed, but you kept doubling down on it, while filtercoffee was rightfully telling you how wrong you were
That’s not even the bad part, you were just denying facts without even testing stuff and calling him names for no reason, then when he started “calling you names” in retaliation (can’t really blame him, you were insufferable) you started complaining how you were being harassed yourself… Just stop being toxic and saying stuff like you know what you are talking about when you clearly don’t, it’s ok to question stuff if you are not sure, but don’t act like a know-it-all and start derailing the thread
Don’t expect to be respected if you don’t respect others
3 Likes
Does balance count for single player?
Or does it not matter at all?
What is true is that a civ must have a maximum power in TG and have enough power spikes during some periods of the game in 1v1 games to be around balance
In equally matched 1v1 games there is never enough time/resources to be able to show the potential of each civ; in TG you assume you are going to use the full potential of each civ
Obviously the interesting thing in TG is to reach/survive to that point of the game. While in 1v1 it is to defeat the other player in that fair use of time/resources; using them in better measure than the opponent
At the end of the day the important thing is to have fun, the balance is looking for that. But most of the games are not even ranked games, most of the games are SP. There are also some non-ranked MP games that have to be taken into account
2 Likes
if you only play 1v1s, you only understand around 60% of what balance means.
I think we can not give percentages for this.
If there are 600000 1v1 games but 400000 team games than much more time is spend in team games, because more players are involved.
But 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 all have a somewhat different balance too.
Every map has a different balance. Every setting has a different balance. Every elo has a different balance. Every player has a different balance.
Unranked mods like Diplomacy and FFA are relavant too. Things like Deathmatch and Regicide are relevant too.
When the talk is about “balance”, this implies that there can be a balance, an overall balanced state. But that is an illusion imo.
“Game balance” as something exactly measurable doesn’t exist.
2 Likes
Currently there seems to be two different threads: One about team games players only dont understand balance and one about 1v1 players dont understand balance. I’ll be posting this replay to both to show my vision on this debate. Personally i do believe both are wrong.
The main point: This game should be balanced towards both 1v1 and team games. To both open maps and closed maps. Having all civs at 50% win rate for every setting is an utopia. It will never achieved. It will even make the game feels blend. Civs dont have any identity. To me it will be fine if a civ have an edge for a specific niche, as long as it isnt game breaking for other settings.
Different settings (map type, 1v1 or team game) ask both for different things. A civ can be weak for 1v1, but strong for team games or visa versa. Both cases should be considered when doing balance changes. Limiting balance to just one setting (Looking at you 1v1 Arabia only or 4v4 black forest only people) is to narrow minded. When suggesting balance changes you have to consider all popular option.
In the end stupid balance changes aren’t made because people play only team games or only 1v1s. The real reason to me is people arre to narrow minded or just lack the insight/game knowledge. They just badly lost a game against a strategy and therefore want to nerf that strategy. They lack to aknowledge it was due to other reason they lost. Balance isnt always the reason why you lost. There are many others reasons.
You could have made bad mistakes. Your enemy could be playing better then normal. You could be matches wrongly against a better player that recently underperformed, so his rating dropped. Some players are much better on certain maps, so that is a reason why they play better or worse. And for teaam games also other factors play a role as well. Like premades vs solo or team play between a team as well. As result team games tend to be more unbalanced in general, since you can be carried by allies doing all the hard work for you. These are all factors in the outcome of games. But these are much harder to aknowledge for players. So they blame balance and made a thread.
On average higher rated players do have a better insight in this game and are better in deciding which balance changes make sense and which don’t make sense, but there are clearly some exceptions. Even pros can be wrong about the impact of balance changes, while a few lower rated players can be right. There is some correlation between Elo en you good your balance suggestions is, but it won’t be a 100% correlation…
4 Likes
It’s clear that you didn’t read this post. Not sure if you read the other one. Please read the full post, not just the title.
Thanks for your substantive response. I did read both threads and then posted my replay.
1 Like
It’s further exacerbated by the OP being on some high and mighty horse trying to dictate who gets to post where and what. That’s not how forums work in general, nor how these forums work in particular. It’s trying to stifle discussion, and they’re readily calling everything as bad faith arguments while… well, arguing in bad faith themselves. Oh well.
That being said, there are more maps played in teamgames than just Black Forest. Elephants can work (but not always on BF especially when you’re against Halb+SO) in some situations. Saying that 1v1 players don’t know how to counter that is a little silly. 1v1 players should have good Mangonel micro, as that’s something very frequently seen in the game.
But that’s not relevant - after all, at low level 1v1s or team games the players in general won’t understand game balance well, regardless of map and game modes.
(btw, just halbs will work fine too, as War Elephants are much harder to mass than spamming halbs from 20 barracks)
3 Likes
What? I thought at the beginning there was only one thread about X person who dont understand game balance. 11 Did someone get offended by the first post who got published and created a similar one?
This behavior is really childish.
2 Likes
OP’s thread is a response thread to another thread titled ‘TG only players don’t understand game balance’.
1 Like
If you did, you should know that I agree with most things you’ve said.
This is literally the point of this thread.
Sure, I don’t think anybody who understand the game, or balance disagrees. The point is, you try as best as you can to get the closest to 50%.
True, but that lack of insight is because you don’t know both 1v1s and team games. You can only balance what you know, and if you don’t play both modes, you don’t know.
That’s what happened, and that’s what I think.
So, if you agree with me, then what is the issue? I just posted my opinion about both threads in both threads.
You said this:
However, you didn’t point out how I was wrong, and most of what I said doesn’t contradict with what you said. That is what confused me, and still confuses me.
Balance isn’t about modes or resources. Either units are balanced out or not.
1 Like
That’s blatantly false, if you play 1v1 Arabia, maybe you’ll start to understand.
3 Likes
Both thread names are wrong. You already mentioned that the name of your thread didnt matched with the message.
1 Like
The unit you mention is only OP in amazon and michi
1 Like