Chance to hit (accuracy) - does not sense in 3.1 (?)

[Iluvalar]

Though it is recommended that you attend to and manage your units during the heat of battle, not be looking at all your research options or whatever.

Go try to play against some good elements. You will find yourself constantly under pressure. If your not, you are missing your only opportunity to strike back . From the very first viper they produce until the end.

[NoQ]

it is like talking to a wall

Iluvalar: i'm still promoting the idea of making a closed (or read-only for normals) balance forum to avoid all the pointless talk to walls like those guys above or other users who have never heard of balance.

[Deus Siddis]

Iluvalar: i'm still promoting the idea of making a closed (or read-only for normals) balance forum to avoid all the pointless talk to walls like those guys above or other users who have never heard of balance.

Bah, all I said was this in response to something Per wrote and now you two are having a pity party over lack of your own private forum and commit access.

[Originway]

it is like talking to a wall

Iluvalar: i'm still promoting the idea of making a closed (or read-only for normals) balance forum to avoid all the pointless talk to walls like those guys above or other users who have never heard of balance.

that would be nonsense!
just because you think your self-proclaimed experts on balance you think you can just take the decision process away from everyone else?
it should be out in the open so everyone knows what is going on!
say NO! to private forums!

[NoQ]

just because you think your self-proclaimed experts on balance you think you can just take the decision process away from everyone else?

Yes. It's very simple: defeat me in 1x1 and i'll trust you. If you can't even defeat me, then i believe you shouldn't have a word on balance issues. That's just how balance works: you can have no clue if there is one at all until you're close to the top of the ladder.

For instance, after a certain practice with cannons i made many weaker players believe light cannons are overpowered. Simply because they played a few games when i used light cannons and defeated their minipod rockets or flamers or whatever. But in fact they lost not because light cannons are overpowered but because they simply weren't playing well enough. And if they are allowed to speak and we make their opinion equally valuable, then we'd have to nerf cannons; but this is incorrect, as i can't repeat that on stronger players. Then again i ask whether it means cannons are underpowered or just i'm not playing well enough.

[Deus Siddis]

Yes. It's very simple: defeat me in 1x1 and i'll trust you. If you can't even defeat me, then i believe you shouldn't have a word on balance issues. That's just how balance works: you can have no clue if there is one at all until you're close to the top of the ladder.

Not quite that simple though.

Balance is important and more experienced players will tend to have more incites into it. But a game's sole purpose is to be fun and balance alone cannot do that. If it could then WZ would have only one unit to make certain everything stays dead even. That is why it is a problem if you think it is up to you alone to decide the course of the game's development, simply because you are a good player.

Ultimately the direction the game is developed in is the decision of the core developers and they are the ones who will and should make the big decisions. If good players have a role in things, it is to suggest smaller subsequent changes that can help maintain a finer game balance.

[Originway]

Not quite that simple though.

Balance is important and more experienced players will tend to have more incites into it. But a game's sole purpose is to be fun and balance alone cannot do that. If it could then WZ would have only one unit to make certain everything stays dead even. That is why it is a problem if you think it is up to you alone to decide the course of the game's development, simply because you are a good player.

Ultimately the direction the game is developed in is the decision of the core developers and they are the ones who will and should make the big decisions. If good players have a role in things, it is to suggest smaller subsequent changes that can help maintain a finer game balance.

well said

[Jorzi]

Speaking of my personal experiences of multiplayer gameplay including a variety of players I want to take NoQ:s side in this debate.
I usually see most weapons fairly well used. For a casual player, I've really never seen anyone lose a game because of game balance. There is no instaWin tactic and that's enough for most players. This means that the remaining balance issues really are for pros only. These "pro level" changes don't really affect the casual players at all. Therefore, I don't see why they should have a say in dictating these things.

For reference:http://xkcd.com/1112/

[Deus Siddis]

I usually see most weapons fairly well used. For a casual player, I've really never seen anyone lose a game because of game balance.

I don't think anyone is saying the current balance itself is bad in anyway, that's not what this 'debate' was over. Instead it's a disagreement between--

"Do not implement changes that upset the current game balance in order to preserve the current game balance."

Vs.

"It is okay to change a 'broken' but significant game play feature and then fix resulting balance issues along with bugs as part of a major release development cycle."

[Jorzi]

Well, this thread is so derailed it's hard to say what the current debate is about...

just because you think your self-proclaimed experts on balance you think you can just take the decision process away from everyone else?

Not from everyone else, just from people like you. It's all about street credit. If anyone can show their understanding of the game mechanics by actually pwning people, I assure you he will be taken seriously.

[Iluvalar]

Instead it's a disagreement between--

"Do not implement changes that upset the current game balance in order to preserve the current game balance."

Vs.

"It is okay to change a 'broken' but significant game play feature and then fix resulting balance issues along with bugs as part of a major release development cycle."

Actually no, the problem is that it WON'T be possible to "fix resulting balance". There would ALWAYS be a 1-2 tile gap that will turn one of the player 50% stronger if he move across it. Dependent of the size of both models, the accuracy of both weapons, the elevation and the age of the captain.

It would simply be crazy

[Deus Siddis]

Actually no, the problem is that it WON'T be possible to "fix resulting balance".

And I still strongly disagree with that assumption, especially since I have seen it done successfully in other games. Maybe we should agree to disagree?

There would ALWAYS be a 1-2 tile gap that will turn one of the player 50% stronger if he move across it. Dependent of the size of both models, the accuracy of both weapons, the elevation and the age of the captain.

Positioning would play a bigger role for unguided projectile weapons, yes. And accuracy would be affected as a result, but that wouldn't touch upgrades for damage per shot, rate of fire, etc. And in return you would have a WYSIWYG solution for ballistics, which in my opinion is well worth the sacrifice.

[Iluvalar]

What do you mean by "assumption" ? I make an on scale drawing of a 40% accuracy vs 60% accuracy and you keep pretending it's just an opinion. What do you want more ?

Of course, if we where designing every single weapon, body and structure differently. If we where making so the opponents send many small waves instead of one large big front with repair cycle like it is now so one that gap is crossed sometime by one, sometime by the other in such way the odds are equalized in a gaussian distribution. If we were changing the scale of the whole game and by that I mean EVERY single 3d models in the game. And if we were changing the research progression speed accordingly. We could design a game that use a realistic accuracy model. But it wouldn't even close to what we have now. Better start a whole new game featuring ponies vs goblin.

[Deus Siddis]

What do you mean by "assumption"?

I mean your statement that the game would be irreparably broken by a change to one game play element.

I make an on scale drawing of a 40% accuracy vs 60% accuracy and you keep pretending it's just an opinion. What do you want more?

I never disputed your scale drawing. What I said was:

" Positioning would play a bigger role for unguided projectile weapons, yes. And accuracy would be affected as a result, but that wouldn't touch upgrades for damage per shot, rate of fire, etc. And in return you would have a WYSIWYG solution for weapon accuracy, which in my personal opinion is well worth the sacrifice. "

[Iluvalar]

What do you mean by "assumption"?

I mean your statement that the game would be irreparably broken by a change to one game play element.

Ok ! I'm listening to your suggestions. How would you fix that ?