Welcome back. With the more general basics dealt with, I'm going to move a a very specific area of balancing. OP rants. ![:)]( "Happy")
Don't behave like a moron, and DON'T RANT.
You know that something is imbalanced? Saying it in all capitals or giant letters is the perfect way to sound like a fanboy, and get you collectively mocked. If you have something to say, say it legibly, sensibly, and make ample use of the Enter button. I'm yet to find someone who likes a walls of text.
Similarly, once you've made your well-thought out conclusion, you're bound to get some responses. And unless something is completely obvious, then you're bound to get some negative responses. Take them in your stride, don't dodge the issues, listen to what they say, and use just as much intelligence in your following writing as I hope you had in your first post.
Ultimately, if your behaviour is best compared to a crying kid, then you really need to rethink your post.
Your opinion alone does not make something imbalanced
It just so happens that you're opinions of how the game works do not define how the game works. Simply, just because something looks OP doesn't necessarily make it OP.
If you find yourself in the circumstance where you are the only one arguing for a balance change, then there's a good chance that the balance change is not needed. I once heard one person say something to the effect of, "If everybody says that you're wrong and you fail, then there's a good chance that you're wrong and you fail."
(Similarly, however, it should be noted that balance is not decided by the majority, it's just that there's a good possiblity of the majority being right.)
Time is needed to prove imbalance
You cannot change something after a single game. If I see someone demanding a balance change after a single game they had, I will just ignore them. (except in exceptional circumstances, such as a single PK being able to defeat unlimited Soviet forces)
When a new strategy appears, it will often have no counters. Since the strategy has never been seen before, opposing players will have never needed to counter it, and so will not have the knowledge to do so. It is then understandable that a new strategy has a much higher success level than the same strategy after long amounts of use. Just because it is not counterable immediately, however, does not mean it cannot be countered.
Keep skill levels in mind, a player that beats you may be much better than you.
I've seen an incredibly large amount of players who complaining about balance problems, when the real balance problem is between skill levels, not between opposing factions. If you've just been beaten, consider the fact that they might be better than you, before posting your thoughts online. Otherwise, others will consider this fact instead, and you'll be embarassed in front of the entire community.
Don't call a strat OP when your enemy has THREE TIMES YOUR ECONOMY
Suppose you are the Allies faction, and you get a good tank force built up. You start rolling towards your enemy, when a whole lot of tengus land on your tanks, and despite their weak attack, decimate you simply with HD. This happens many times, with the huge number of tengus taking out both guardians and mirages easily, and eventually overwhelming the home base.
What's the best response? Go and whinge on the forums? One player had this exact scenario, and made a large post (with ample CAPS) in the GR.org forums, complaining that tengus were OP.
The community (who actually took the time to watch the replay) ripped him to parts, stating the extremely obvious. His enemy had started with a 4-ref build, and had HUGE amounts of money. Enough that he could even do usually inneffective strategies and win the game.
In short, any strategy can succeed with ample money, which brings me to my next point.
Even great strats can fail with bad macromanagement, and vice versa.
If a player manages their base perfectly, expanding at the right times, building neither too little or too many power plants, takes his important garrisons and tech structures, techs up at the correct time, and doesn't float large amounts of money, he is likely to do a much better job than a player who does none of these things well. Even if the latter player has the best strategy possible mapped out, he can fail just because of bad gameplay.
The war on the battlefield can often be won at the home.
Discuss ![:)]( "Happy")
Welcome back. With the more general basics dealt with, I'm going to move a a very specific area of balancing. OP rants. ![:)]( "Happy")
Don't behave like a moron, and DON'T RANT.
You know that something is imbalanced? Saying it in all capitals or giant letters is the perfect way to sound like a fanboy, and get you collectively mocked. If you have something to say, say it legibly, sensibly, and make ample use of the Enter button. I'm yet to find someone who likes a walls of text.
Similarly, once you've made your well-thought out conclusion, you're bound to get some responses. And unless something is completely obvious, then you're bound to get some negative responses. Take them in your stride, don't dodge the issues, listen to what they say, and use just as much intelligence in your following writing as I hope you had in your first post.
Ultimately, if your behaviour is best compared to a crying kid, then you really need to rethink your post.
Your opinion alone does not make something imbalanced
It just so happens that you're opinions of how the game works do not define how the game works. Simply, just because something looks OP doesn't necessarily make it OP.
If you find yourself in the circumstance where you are the only one arguing for a balance change, then there's a good chance that the balance change is not needed. I once heard one person say something to the effect of, "If everybody says that you're wrong and you fail, then there's a good chance that you're wrong and you fail."
(Similarly, however, it should be noted that balance is not decided by the majority, it's just that there's a good possiblity of the majority being right.)
Time is needed to prove imbalance
You cannot change something after a single game. If I see someone demanding a balance change after a single game they had, I will just ignore them. (except in exceptional circumstances, such as a single PK being able to defeat unlimited Soviet forces)
When a new strategy appears, it will often have no counters. Since the strategy has never been seen before, opposing players will have never needed to counter it, and so will not have the knowledge to do so. It is then understandable that a new strategy has a much higher success level than the same strategy after long amounts of use. Just because it is not counterable immediately, however, does not mean it cannot be countered.
Keep skill levels in mind, a player that beats you may be much better than you.
I've seen an incredibly large amount of players who complaining about balance problems, when the real balance problem is between skill levels, not between opposing factions. If you've just been beaten, consider the fact that they might be better than you, before posting your thoughts online. Otherwise, others will consider this fact instead, and you'll be embarassed in front of the entire community.
Don't call a strat OP when your enemy has THREE TIMES YOUR ECONOMY
Suppose you are the Allies faction, and you get a good tank force built up. You start rolling towards your enemy, when a whole lot of tengus land on your tanks, and despite their weak attack, decimate you simply with HD. This happens many times, with the huge number of tengus taking out both guardians and mirages easily, and eventually overwhelming the home base.
What's the best response? Go and whinge on the forums? One player had this exact scenario, and made a large post (with ample CAPS) in the GR.org forums, complaining that tengus were OP.
The community (who actually took the time to watch the replay) ripped him to parts, stating the extremely obvious. His enemy had started with a 4-ref build, and had HUGE amounts of money. Enough that he could even do usually inneffective strategies and win the game.
In short, any strategy can succeed with ample money, which brings me to my next point.
Even great strats can fail with bad macromanagement, and vice versa.
If a player manages their base perfectly, expanding at the right times, building neither too little or too many power plants, takes his important garrisons and tech structures, techs up at the correct time, and doesn't float large amounts of money, he is likely to do a much better job than a player who does none of these things well. Even if the latter player has the best strategy possible mapped out, he can fail just because of bad gameplay.
The war on the battlefield can often be won at the home.
Discuss ![:)]( "Happy")
Don't behave like a moron, and DON'T RANT.
You know that something is imbalanced? Saying it in all capitals or giant letters is the perfect way to sound like a fanboy, and get you collectively mocked. If you have something to say, say it legibly, sensibly, and make ample use of the Enter button. I'm yet to find someone who likes a walls of text.
Similarly, once you've made your well-thought out conclusion, you're bound to get some responses. And unless something is completely obvious, then you're bound to get some negative responses. Take them in your stride, don't dodge the issues, listen to what they say, and use just as much intelligence in your following writing as I hope you had in your first post.
Ultimately, if your behaviour is best compared to a crying kid, then you really need to rethink your post.
Your opinion alone does not make something imbalanced
It just so happens that you're opinions of how the game works do not define how the game works. Simply, just because something looks OP doesn't necessarily make it OP.
If you find yourself in the circumstance where you are the only one arguing for a balance change, then there's a good chance that the balance change is not needed. I once heard one person say something to the effect of, "If everybody says that you're wrong and you fail, then there's a good chance that you're wrong and you fail."
(Similarly, however, it should be noted that balance is not decided by the majority, it's just that there's a good possiblity of the majority being right.)
Time is needed to prove imbalance
You cannot change something after a single game. If I see someone demanding a balance change after a single game they had, I will just ignore them. (except in exceptional circumstances, such as a single PK being able to defeat unlimited Soviet forces)
When a new strategy appears, it will often have no counters. Since the strategy has never been seen before, opposing players will have never needed to counter it, and so will not have the knowledge to do so. It is then understandable that a new strategy has a much higher success level than the same strategy after long amounts of use. Just because it is not counterable immediately, however, does not mean it cannot be countered.
Keep skill levels in mind, a player that beats you may be much better than you.
I've seen an incredibly large amount of players who complaining about balance problems, when the real balance problem is between skill levels, not between opposing factions. If you've just been beaten, consider the fact that they might be better than you, before posting your thoughts online. Otherwise, others will consider this fact instead, and you'll be embarassed in front of the entire community.
Don't call a strat OP when your enemy has THREE TIMES YOUR ECONOMY
Suppose you are the Allies faction, and you get a good tank force built up. You start rolling towards your enemy, when a whole lot of tengus land on your tanks, and despite their weak attack, decimate you simply with HD. This happens many times, with the huge number of tengus taking out both guardians and mirages easily, and eventually overwhelming the home base.
What's the best response? Go and whinge on the forums? One player had this exact scenario, and made a large post (with ample CAPS) in the GR.org forums, complaining that tengus were OP.
The community (who actually took the time to watch the replay) ripped him to parts, stating the extremely obvious. His enemy had started with a 4-ref build, and had HUGE amounts of money. Enough that he could even do usually inneffective strategies and win the game.
In short, any strategy can succeed with ample money, which brings me to my next point.
Even great strats can fail with bad macromanagement, and vice versa.
If a player manages their base perfectly, expanding at the right times, building neither too little or too many power plants, takes his important garrisons and tech structures, techs up at the correct time, and doesn't float large amounts of money, he is likely to do a much better job than a player who does none of these things well. Even if the latter player has the best strategy possible mapped out, he can fail just because of bad gameplay.
The war on the battlefield can often be won at the home.
Discuss Welcome back. With the more general basics dealt with, I'm going to move a a very specific area of balancing. OP rants. Don't behave like a moron, and DON'T RANT.
You know that something is imbalanced? Saying it in all capitals or giant letters is the perfect way to sound like a fanboy, and get you collectively mocked. If you have something to say, say it legibly, sensibly, and make ample use of the Enter button. I'm yet to find someone who likes a walls of text.
Similarly, once you've made your well-thought out conclusion, you're bound to get some responses. And unless something is completely obvious, then you're bound to get some negative responses. Take them in your stride, don't dodge the issues, listen to what they say, and use just as much intelligence in your following writing as I hope you had in your first post.
Ultimately, if your behaviour is best compared to a crying kid, then you really need to rethink your post.
Your opinion alone does not make something imbalanced
It just so happens that you're opinions of how the game works do not define how the game works. Simply, just because something looks OP doesn't necessarily make it OP.
If you find yourself in the circumstance where you are the only one arguing for a balance change, then there's a good chance that the balance change is not needed. I once heard one person say something to the effect of, "If everybody says that you're wrong and you fail, then there's a good chance that you're wrong and you fail."
(Similarly, however, it should be noted that balance is not decided by the majority, it's just that there's a good possiblity of the majority being right.)
Time is needed to prove imbalance
You cannot change something after a single game. If I see someone demanding a balance change after a single game they had, I will just ignore them. (except in exceptional circumstances, such as a single PK being able to defeat unlimited Soviet forces)
When a new strategy appears, it will often have no counters. Since the strategy has never been seen before, opposing players will have never needed to counter it, and so will not have the knowledge to do so. It is then understandable that a new strategy has a much higher success level than the same strategy after long amounts of use. Just because it is not counterable immediately, however, does not mean it cannot be countered.
Keep skill levels in mind, a player that beats you may be much better than you.
I've seen an incredibly large amount of players who complaining about balance problems, when the real balance problem is between skill levels, not between opposing factions. If you've just been beaten, consider the fact that they might be better than you, before posting your thoughts online. Otherwise, others will consider this fact instead, and you'll be embarassed in front of the entire community.
Don't call a strat OP when your enemy has THREE TIMES YOUR ECONOMY
Suppose you are the Allies faction, and you get a good tank force built up. You start rolling towards your enemy, when a whole lot of tengus land on your tanks, and despite their weak attack, decimate you simply with HD. This happens many times, with the huge number of tengus taking out both guardians and mirages easily, and eventually overwhelming the home base.
What's the best response? Go and whinge on the forums? One player had this exact scenario, and made a large post (with ample CAPS) in the GR.org forums, complaining that tengus were OP.
The community (who actually took the time to watch the replay) ripped him to parts, stating the extremely obvious. His enemy had started with a 4-ref build, and had HUGE amounts of money. Enough that he could even do usually inneffective strategies and win the game.
In short, any strategy can succeed with ample money, which brings me to my next point.
Even great strats can fail with bad macromanagement, and vice versa.
If a player manages their base perfectly, expanding at the right times, building neither too little or too many power plants, takes his important garrisons and tech structures, techs up at the correct time, and doesn't float large amounts of money, he is likely to do a much better job than a player who does none of these things well. Even if the latter player has the best strategy possible mapped out, he can fail just because of bad gameplay.
The war on the battlefield can often be won at the home.
Discuss
