USA early game against PE

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3791
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: USA early game against PE

Postby Tiger1996 » 08 Aug 2018, 16:17

Shanks wrote:@elpiojo, you should play more pvp, before doing a post like this here, is what I think, the scout car it's not a problem!

I think it's just that Elpio plays Axis rarely.. so I guess he just needs to play Axis more, because as far as I can tell.. he is almost only playing Allies.

Shanks wrote:I totally agree, in addition, it is not necessary to lower the speed of the scout, at this moment the game is played cooperatively, in short, you need the British at the beginning of the game in "standard" resources, and in "advanced" resources , you will not have problems vs scout cars, so, I THINK it is not necessary to modify anything ....

And yes, I think there is absolutely no need to lower the speed for vehicles any further.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2988
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: USA early game against PE

Postby Warhawks97 » 08 Aug 2018, 17:56

Ok. funny, so after a year of fixing and correcting description we shall shit on it, nice.
The armor plate of the jeep does not protect you completely from bullets? fine, why does the same armor protects axis vs cal 50 quite nicely?
And why not just making a test, just as you did with the sherman vs Tiger thing?

Put a HT in front of a tank IV and let the mg gunner shoot the HT. I would bet that it does damage. Even more as a cal 50 would do


@markr: Pls, can we just forget that 100% realistic mind? I mean its part of the game but many weapons would be different. Quad cal 50 and 20 mm would be absolutely shredding machines. In this matter, single mount 20 mm kill vehicles a bit too fast. Perhaps a 2 damage modifier instead of 2.5?


What bugs me about cal 50 in general or most: It has 360 rpm while it could have 480. And why has a weapon, designed to be effective even at range (the bullet was very fast compared to for example the axis 13 mm Mg131) has just half the accuracy of a top mout MG34? You dont want it realistic? fine, me neither, but it can be surely more than inferior to a an MG with 7,92 mm calibre.

And i dont think it makes vehicles obsolet? If anything has the potential to make vehicles obsolet then bad adjusted AT rifles (i dont say they are bad designed, dont get me wrong here).
If we count together how many cal 50 allied would have for free then its just the recce, the M20, Perhaps Greyhound and the transport HT when inf is inside or in coming patches being upgraded (for higher cost than of course than any MG34 upgrade). The Mortar HT as well but lets be honest, nobody will go hunting vehicles with mortar HT´s suddenly. And main vehicles with 20 mm would still make a short job with it.

If we now count the ammount of multipurpose 20 mm, well we find them on HT´s, Trucks like Opel Blitz which can potentially kill M20´s as well, several Wheeled vehicles. So basically that would be quite even. And the 20 mm would still clearly outclass the cal 50 in direct egagments.
+ Keep in mind that axis in general have quite a number of fast vehicles using bigger guns like 37 mm, even 75 mm Stubby and that 75 mm pak 40 from PE. So in most engagments the allied vehicle would have to retreat anyway or wait for a favouring moment (like when axis is reloading).
And all i am asking for is a slight boost. Accuracy is the main issue of all cal 50, rof can perhaps stay even though its very low. The Pen would be arround 10% vs the Puma type vehicles, 20-30 vs HT´s and 222 type and approx 70-80 vs 221 types which are t1 anyway while Vehicles with cal 50 are higher tiers, so no prob here.

The Greyhound could perhaps come without cal 50, but its armor would be payed in MP instead of ammo and the cal 50 available for 25 ammo. Tanks and Scott would pay 50 ammo. And i dont think the idea with cal 50 on shermans at default after ammo upgrade is a bad idea. Its a long way to get it+ shermans and its offensive unlock, so.

User avatar
Shanks
Posts: 457
Joined: 22 Nov 2016, 22:02

Re: USA early game against PE

Postby Shanks » 08 Aug 2018, 18:32

Warhawks97 wrote:Ok. funny, so after a year of fixing and correcting description we shall shit on it, nice.
The armor plate of the jeep does not protect you completely from bullets? fine, why does the same armor protects axis vs cal 50 quite nicely?
And why not just making a test, just as you did with the sherman vs Tiger thing?

Put a HT in front of a tank IV and let the mg gunner shoot the HT. I would bet that it does damage. Even more as a cal 50 would do


@markr: Pls, can we just forget that 100% realistic mind? I mean its part of the game but many weapons would be different. Quad cal 50 and 20 mm would be absolutely shredding machines. In this matter, single mount 20 mm kill vehicles a bit too fast. Perhaps a 2 damage modifier instead of 2.5?


What bugs me about cal 50 in general or most: It has 360 rpm while it could have 480. And why has a weapon, designed to be effective even at range (the bullet was very fast compared to for example the axis 13 mm Mg131) has just half the accuracy of a top mout MG34? You dont want it realistic? fine, me neither, but it can be surely more than inferior to a an MG with 7,92 mm calibre.

And i dont think it makes vehicles obsolet? If anything has the potential to make vehicles obsolet then bad adjusted AT rifles (i dont say they are bad designed, dont get me wrong here).
If we count together how many cal 50 allied would have for free then its just the recce, the M20, Perhaps Greyhound and the transport HT when inf is inside or in coming patches being upgraded (for higher cost than of course than any MG34 upgrade). The Mortar HT as well but lets be honest, nobody will go hunting vehicles with mortar HT´s suddenly. And main vehicles with 20 mm would still make a short job with it.

If we now count the ammount of multipurpose 20 mm, well we find them on HT´s, Trucks like Opel Blitz which can potentially kill M20´s as well, several Wheeled vehicles. So basically that would be quite even. And the 20 mm would still clearly outclass the cal 50 in direct egagments.
+ Keep in mind that axis in general have quite a number of fast vehicles using bigger guns like 37 mm, even 75 mm Stubby and that 75 mm pak 40 from PE. So in most engagments the allied vehicle would have to retreat anyway or wait for a favouring moment (like when axis is reloading).
And all i am asking for is a slight boost. Accuracy is the main issue of all cal 50, rof can perhaps stay even though its very low. The Pen would be arround 10% vs the Puma type vehicles, 20-30 vs HT´s and 222 type and approx 70-80 vs 221 types which are t1 anyway while Vehicles with cal 50 are higher tiers, so no prob here.

The Greyhound could perhaps come without cal 50, but its armor would be payed in MP instead of ammo and the cal 50 available for 25 ammo. Tanks and Scott would pay 50 ammo. And i dont think the idea with cal 50 on shermans at default after ammo upgrade is a bad idea. Its a long way to get it+ shermans and its offensive unlock, so.



why you create so many problems? hahahaha :geek:

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2988
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: USA early game against PE

Postby Warhawks97 » 08 Aug 2018, 18:56

Sure, i create them. They exist since i can remember. Even more of them and which have been often the reason i stopped playing BK. Over the past 3 years or so lots of stuff got fixed and many of the really annoying things. I had created my own private version where i fxied a lot of stuff. And funnilly the past patches have brought lots of changes i did in my Bk version as well (eg hold position for pios, AT gun fixes etc).

What you say is like say that the guy talking about problems (eg ressources, climate change etc) is also the creater. Great Logic.

kwok
Posts: 1293
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: USA early game against PE

Postby kwok » 08 Aug 2018, 19:40

drivebyhobo wrote:
kwok wrote:But Markr can you REALLY blame them when the option is available and it’s literally labeled standard? Even more so when you get annoying formula players who get themselves off winning some gimmicky early game meta exploit and then parade around calling themselves “pro” and prostletizing standard res is the way to play?

There are and have been plenty of gimmicky early game meta exploits in high resources. Who are you kidding?


Tell me what they are and how they can't be hedged against with a well composed opening. The reason why high resource openings aren't gimmicky as often is because more types of units are readily available in the first 5 minutes to make something resembling a composition, not fucking rock paper scissors. I had a huge post on this: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2397&p=23047&hilit=high+resource#p23028

drivebyhobo wrote:
kwok wrote:Even if it has been said repeatedly by devs on the forum for years, clearly the message isn't getting out because when I bring it up to players in lobby they blatantly say i'm wrong.

Before you get so self righteous kwok, the official developer line on the old forums was standard resources was the way to play for many years. That was why it was codified into the launcher as recommended.

In fact, high resources was mainly the favorite of those who wanted to skip to the end game as fast as possible. Before the Tiger Ace Callin had requirements, it was very common to see Tiger Aces appearing around the 20 minute mark of high resource games. And no, there was no super pershing spam from the US side, because there was no Super Pershing.

It really is ridiculous to hear high resources as being the antidote to bad map design. If a map is designed such that winning a single area with the first encounter wins you the game, then it is a poorly designed map in both standard and high resources. A high resources crutch in that situation does not change that you will need your opponent to make a very exploitable mistake to turn it around.


Before you get so superior drivebyhobo, the old forum and old developers aren't some old testament bible to stick to. Things change, the game changes, and so it makes sense to take the latest information. The original scientists said that planets revolved around Earth. Wolf can try to remain as true as he can to Xalibur's vision, but if devs want to take their own direction on the mod they are free to do so and consider that the "truth" of the mod just as I'm free to comment on the execution of how they disseminate that truth. So cool, glad to know it was codified in the old launcher but the old launcher isn't here anymore. Nowadays, we've added reasons to play high resources and just because those reasons weren't thought of or relevant in the past, doesn't mean they aren't relevant today.

When you say "in fact" it doesn't make it absolute and only. Yes, in the past high resource was mainly for those who wanted to skip phases of the game. But, "in fact" the game is barely accelerated from a pvp perspective as also mentioned in my long post above. Sure some players can try to accelerate into a really really early tiger... if they spent on NOTHING but working towards that tiger but "in fact" that strategy is normally crushed quickly and isn't meta at all.

It's ridiculous that you think that you believe high resources was supposed to be a solution to bad map design in the first place. High resources is meant to prevent a game of rock paper scissors, not "lock down maps". That's what BIG MAPS are a solution for. Elpiojo and Mefisto are annoyed that PE have more options than US and CW in a game of rock paper scissors, which is inherently unbalanced, no map changes that.

drivebyhobo
Posts: 97
Joined: 08 Mar 2015, 00:53

Re: USA early game against PE

Postby drivebyhobo » 09 Aug 2018, 00:20

kwok wrote:When you say "in fact" it doesn't make it absolute and only. Yes, in the past high resource was mainly for those who wanted to skip phases of the game. But, "in fact" the game is barely accelerated from a pvp perspective as also mentioned in my long post above. Sure some players can try to accelerate into a really really early tiger... if they spent on NOTHING but working towards that tiger but "in fact" that strategy is normally crushed quickly and isn't meta at all.

This is why we can't have nice things such as discussing the status quo with respect to the past and its metas.

Nobody is going to agree that rushing for a Tiger is likely to work out well in modern versions of BK. But it made a great deal of meta sense in the context of old BK versions where airstrikes did little damage to tanks, 17 lbers were toothless. regular pershings and jacksons existed as target practice and super pershings did not exist.

I'm sure it was just a little mistake on your part to overlook the clearly obvious context.

kwok wrote:Before you get so superior drivebyhobo,

No. no. no. This is not about me. You're the one calling people morons for not playing high resource games. I mean really, you took a seminar on Game Theory at the airport and seem to feel that you have become so "superior" from that experience, that you can browbeat any poster. I challenge you to stop hiding behind pseudo mathematical babble and actually present an academic paper describing a complete rigorous game theory mathematical model for Company of Heroes. Until you do that, why don't you stop insinuating that your arguments are derived from rigor?


kwok wrote:the old forum and old developers aren't some old testament bible to stick to. Things change, the game changes, and so it makes sense to take the latest information

The past is prologue and the option of "high" vs "standard" goes far beyond BK Mod. On a fundamental level, the option for high resources is a renaming of Dawn Of War 1's "Quickstart". It's purpose was to quickly bring the game to duels between end game units. Similarly, "high resources" for quite a while had the same destructive act of gutting the early game in BK mod.


kwok wrote:That's what BIG MAPS are a solution for

Except you have misidentified the solution. There are big maps that are "lock down maps". A map of dimensions 8096x512, would be "big" but also easily locked down. The true element you are looking for is that a map has to offer multiple pathways to victory. There are several Relic made maps that satisfy that requirement.


MarKr wrote: So yeah, Wasp changes was an attempt to make underused unit more useful which did not work out..

I think it was a success in that the Wasp has a niche in standard resource games. Of course in any high resource game where schrecks are common immediately, it will have no chance and quickly became scrap metal.

Walderschmidt
Posts: 78
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: USA early game against PE

Postby Walderschmidt » 09 Aug 2018, 07:05

drivebyhobo wrote:
kwok wrote:Before you get so superior drivebyhobo,

No. no. no. This is not about me. You're the one calling people morons for not playing high resource games. I mean really, you took a seminar on Game Theory at the airport and seem to feel that you have become so "superior" from that experience, that you can browbeat any poster. I challenge you to stop hiding behind pseudo mathematical babble and actually present an academic paper describing a complete rigorous game theory mathematical model for Company of Heroes. Until you do that, why don't you stop insinuating that your arguments are derived from rigor?


No, you're actually the one who started this argument off on a hostile tangent. Kwok wasn't even talking to you, yet you took it upon yourself to call him "so self righteous kwok". He never once called anybody morons - though you certainly are taking upon yourself to be a mind reader and claim that's what he's saying, albeit implicitly rather than implicitly.

Secondly, Kwok never mentioned high resources to being the antidote to bad map design. When he mentioned people playing 2v2s on 2v2 maps instead of 3v3 maps and so forth and so on, he was using that example to support his argument that people who play this game don't listen to the devs:

kwok wrote:Even if it has been said repeatedly by devs on the forum for years, clearly the message isn't getting out because when I bring it up to players in lobby they blatantly say i'm wrong. So much I have to literally say "I'm not just saying it, the devs say so".


And the one of the current dev says:

MarKr wrote:We keep saying to players for as long as I can remember that BK should be played with High Resources setup (also on big maps). The fact that players ignore the recommended settings is not really problem of the mod. It is like buying a Ferrari, against all recommendation trying to drive it at full speed on some field dirt roald and then complaining to the seller that the car is broken...


Oh look. He also recommends that people play on big maps.


[line break]


drivebyhobo wrote:This is why we can't have nice things such as discussing the status quo with respect to the past and its metas.


We can't have nice things such as civilized discussions when you insist on misrepresenting what someone says because you want to make the point you want to make instead of actually arguing the point. In short, stop being a dick.

drivebyhobo wrote:Nobody is going to agree that rushing for a Tiger is likely to work out well in modern versions of BK. But it made a great deal of meta sense in the context of old BK versions where airstrikes did little damage to tanks, 17 lbers were toothless. regular pershings and jacksons existed as target practice and super pershings did not exist.


We're talking about BK now, not BK then. Airstrikes fuck tanks. 17lbers fuck tanks. Pershings and Jacksons have teeth. And super pershings exist.

drivebyhobo wrote:I'm sure it was just a little mistake on your part to overlook the clearly obvious context.


You're just being a dick here.

drivebyhobo wrote:
kwok wrote:Before you get so superior drivebyhobo,


No. no. no. This is not about me. You're the one calling people morons for not playing high resource games. I mean really, you took a seminar on Game Theory at the airport and seem to feel that you have become so "superior" from that experience, that you can browbeat any poster. I challenge you to stop hiding behind pseudo mathematical babble and actually present an academic paper describing a complete rigorous game theory mathematical model for Company of Heroes. Until you do that, why don't you stop insinuating that your arguments are derived from rigor?


This is about you. And how you dislike bad map design. And refuse to believe that Kwok arguing for high resources play is anything other than his solution to bad map design. Even if he himself tells you otherwise. You're attempting to brow beat Kwok into agreeing with you by all these snide, sarcastic comments and strawman arguments because you got nothing substantial to rebutt his points with. He wouldn't need pseudo mathematical babble to confuse because you refuse to understand plain English. Even Tiger has better comprehension than you.

drivebyhobo wrote:
kwok wrote:the old forum and old developers aren't some old testament bible to stick to. Things change, the game changes, and so it makes sense to take the latest information


The past is prologue and the option of "high" vs "standard" goes far beyond BK Mod. On a fundamental level, the option for high resources is a renaming of Dawn Of War 1's "Quickstart". It's purpose was to quickly bring the game to duels between end game units. Similarly, "high resources" for quite a while had the same destructive act of gutting the early game in BK mod.


Two different games. Similar design, different end goals, play differently. Then there's BK then. And BK now. You're still arguing about the past.

drivebyhobo wrote:Except you have misidentified the solution. There are big maps that are "lock down maps". A map of dimensions 8096x512, would be "big" but also easily locked down. The true element you are looking for is that a map has to offer multiple pathways to victory. There are several Relic made maps that satisfy that requirement.


Here's the only place where you almost admit that Kwok's high resource play argument is not about solving bad map design. But you skip ahead and just say that Kwok has the wrong answer. Then you read his mind and say there are several relic maps that satisfy "that requirement". What pray tell, are those maps? Where's your academic paper describing a rigorous analysis of these maps and how they satisfy Kwok's requirement?

No need to reply. I'm gonna read your mind and say you don't have answer.

G
Last edited by Walderschmidt on 09 Aug 2018, 07:43, edited 6 times in total.

Walderschmidt
Posts: 78
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: USA early game against PE

Postby Walderschmidt » 09 Aug 2018, 07:43

[woops]

G

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3791
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: USA early game against PE

Postby Tiger1996 » 09 Aug 2018, 08:20

Walderschmidt wrote:Even Tiger has better comprehension than you.

Excuse me? :?

drivebyhobo
Posts: 97
Joined: 08 Mar 2015, 00:53

Re: USA early game against PE

Postby drivebyhobo » 09 Aug 2018, 08:36

Walderschmidt wrote:He never once called anybody morons - though you certainly are taking upon yourself to be a mind reader and claim that's what he's saying,

It's in the very thread he linked.

Walderschmidt wrote:Kwok wasn't even talking to you, yet you took it upon yourself to call him "so self righteous kwok".

Kwok directly insulted players that prefer standard resources as being self absorbed with their own egos.

Walderschmidt wrote:Where's your academic paper describing a rigorous analysis of these maps and how they satisfy Kwok's requirement?

If I were making arguments dependent on reference to a mathematical model I devised, then yes I would have no problem providing all relevant formulations in a clear and concise format. I would not be writing rambling essays opining on various things sprinkled with a little game theory jargon then preceding to crown myself an academic.

Walderschmidt wrote: What pray tell, are those maps?

For a start, you may not like these Relic made maps, but Bedum, Lorraine, Montherme and McGehean's War all offer pathways to victory that do not rely on building a runaway economy from controlling a single zone of control or map lockdowns.

The New BK Champion
Posts: 129
Joined: 11 Feb 2018, 22:09

Re: USA early game against PE

Postby The New BK Champion » 09 Aug 2018, 09:37

Wow this topic is dense

Tiger1996 wrote:
Walderschmidt wrote:Even Tiger has better comprehension than you.

Excuse me? :?

XD

Walderschmidt
Posts: 78
Joined: 27 Sep 2017, 12:42

Re: USA early game against PE

Postby Walderschmidt » 09 Aug 2018, 09:47

drivebyhobo wrote:
Walderschmidt wrote:He never once called anybody morons - though you certainly are taking upon yourself to be a mind reader and claim that's what he's saying,

It's in the very thread he linked.


Saying the amount of times people complained about gameplay settings is "dare I say moronic" is hardly calling people morons for not playing high resources. People complain all the time about game settings whether they want certain resources, certain maps, certain faction, certain time of day, certain victory conditions. It's one of the most annoying things in this mod when people come on to a game you're hosting and bark orders at you about the settings instead of hosting their own game with the settings they want. It's rude and aggravating.

Nonetheless, complaining that someone comes in to a hosted game complaining about the settings does not equal belittling them for not liking the same settings as the host likes.


drivebyhobo wrote:Kwok directly insulted players that prefer standard resources as being self absorbed with their own egos.


Ego is not mentioned once in that thread by Kwok or anyone. You're moving the goal posts here. It's already a stretch to claim he's calling people morons when he was talking about people who come into the game and demand the host change settings to suit them.


drivebyhobo wrote:If I were making arguments dependent on reference to a mathematical model I devised, then yes I would have no problem providing all relevant formulations in a clear and concise format. I would not be writing rambling essays opining on various things sprinkled with a little game theory jargon then preceding to crown myself an academic.


He never crowned himself an academic, but you did, eager to dethrone him from that lofty position for some reason. There's no game theory jargon, just game theory from his extensive experience playing this game and the mod.

drivebyhobo wrote:
Walderschmidt wrote: What pray tell, are those maps?

For a start, you may not like these Relic made maps, but Bedum, Lorraine, Montherme and McGehean's War all offer pathways to victory that do not rely on building a runaway economy from controlling a single zone of control or map lockdowns.


I agree with Montherme, McGaechen's War, and even Lorraine (even though it's a bit small). Bedum, not so much my taste, but regardless, those are good maps. Good luck finding players who will play them. The crowd tends to want to play the same maps over and over. I'd be happy to kickn your butt on any of those maps besides Bedum.

Edit: McGaechen's War has a fuel lock down zone. Bedum has bridges, so you can lock down those. Same with Montherme. So the point you were making is moot. Womp womp.

Wald

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3791
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: USA early game against PE

Postby Tiger1996 » 09 Aug 2018, 10:34

drivebyhobo wrote:
Walderschmidt wrote:Kwok wasn't even talking to you, yet you took it upon yourself to call him "so self righteous kwok".

Kwok directly insulted players that prefer standard resources as being self absorbed with their own egos.

Well; despite that I rarely agree with you, drivebyhobo.. but here I actually have to agree.

Walderschmidt wrote:
drivebyhobo wrote:If I were making arguments dependent on reference to a mathematical model I devised, then yes I would have no problem providing all relevant formulations in a clear and concise format. I would not be writing rambling essays opining on various things sprinkled with a little game theory jargon then preceding to crown myself an academic.

He never crowned himself an academic, but you did, eager to dethrone him from that lofty position for some reason.

You see, I obviously have nothing to do with this argument here.. but since you mentioned my name out of nowhere, with very little respect too... While I actually never expected that coming from your side, but regardless... I'm not going to throw it back at you though, because I clearly have nothing against you, but I'm going to throw it back at the one who sent you here in the first place. Since I'm totally aware that Kwok is the one who sent you here. As I believe you wouldn't even bother to participate in this discussion without him calling you in the first place, and thus.. here is my advice to you; Don't be a doll, you are not involved in any of these discussions here.. and you don't have to be. I mean, u don't have to defend anyone!

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2988
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: USA early game against PE

Postby Warhawks97 » 09 Aug 2018, 11:53

Ok, can we perhaps stop that drama at this point? Perhaps you discuss this in private chats.

Regarding the actual matter: High res vs low res, Big maps vs small maps.

1. I dont like High res so much. Sure it helps US to survive PE early game better, but the downside is that stugs/marders (and Hetzers) coming even earlier along with 20 mm armed vehicles and causing yet another lockdown situation even faster. Personally i felt that in a CW/US combo allied did better so far (Boys+rifles+jeep+recce) in standard res (if combined well) than in high res games.
2. About maps: We have many very big maps, i played some of them, but quite many have bridges and stuff that ends up stalemates as well.
A few vcoh maps are very fine as mentioned, just they are small and mortars, esspecially the biggest, can reach almost every square meter when shooting from the base. Duclair is perhaps the worst map of all, small and lock down. If we would have big maps with many paths to victory, those would probably be the most balanced one.
3. The third thing that matters is BK in its entire design. Defending is quite cheap and lots of powerfull ambush units. There is nothing wrong with it actually. But thats one reason why i cant await the new arty ranges to become standard: Arty will be more likely used to destroy these instead of always only first gain arty dominance before crushing the actual defenses.

@Wald: pls dont inslut others by calling them "dicks".
@Kwok and drivebyhobo: Pls dont get in trouble with each other. I guess you both share quite many point of views about BK. Dont start hating each other for nothing or missunderstandings...

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1522
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: USA early game against PE

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 09 Aug 2018, 12:36

Not again...FFS
Image

kwok
Posts: 1293
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: USA early game against PE

Postby kwok » 09 Aug 2018, 17:08

This thread hasn't been locked nor have warnings/bans been given out.... does this mean the moderators are passively allowing me to respond....?

kwok
Posts: 1293
Joined: 29 Mar 2015, 05:22

Re: USA early game against PE

Postby kwok » 09 Aug 2018, 17:59

drivebyhobo wrote:
kwok wrote:When you say "in fact" it doesn't make it absolute and only. Yes, in the past high resource was mainly for those who wanted to skip phases of the game. But, "in fact" the game is barely accelerated from a pvp perspective as also mentioned in my long post above. Sure some players can try to accelerate into a really really early tiger... if they spent on NOTHING but working towards that tiger but "in fact" that strategy is normally crushed quickly and isn't meta at all.

This is why we can't have nice things such as discussing the status quo with respect to the past and its metas.

Nobody is going to agree that rushing for a Tiger is likely to work out well in modern versions of BK. But it made a great deal of meta sense in the context of old BK versions where airstrikes did little damage to tanks, 17 lbers were toothless. regular pershings and jacksons existed as target practice and super pershings did not exist.

I'm sure it was just a little mistake on your part to overlook the clearly obvious context.


Wow it's like you didnt read the previous paragraph to the one quoted and completely overlooked the clearly obvious context and satirism in my response. I'm not sure if it's a little mistake on your part or you're playing 4d chess with satirism for the ultimate irony. well played well played. But just in case it needs to be spelt out... discussing the status quo with respect to the past and its metas isn't a strong an argument as you said... "nobody is going to agree that rushing for a tiger is likely to work out well in modern versions of BK" AKA it's obsolete.

drivebyhobo wrote:
kwok wrote:Before you get so superior drivebyhobo,

No. no. no. This is not about me. You're the one calling people morons for not playing high resource games. I mean really, you took a seminar on Game Theory at the airport and seem to feel that you have become so "superior" from that experience, that you can browbeat any poster. I challenge you to stop hiding behind pseudo mathematical babble and actually present an academic paper describing a complete rigorous game theory mathematical model for Company of Heroes. Until you do that, why don't you stop insinuating that your arguments are derived from rigor?


Tell me who I directly insulted and I promise I'll apologize. But I won't apologize for criticizing the actions themselves. And if you read the part when I call people moronic... is not because they play standard res, it's because of the way they argue back and complain about how I set my game settings. Let me get that quote for you so you don't have to bring it up like some lawyer showing up with hidden evidence.

kwok wrote:The amount of times I get complained at for my game settings is.... uncountable, obnoxious, and dare I say moronic.


I'm sorry you had to build up a straw man and create a hyperbolic image as a means of trying to debase an argument instead of talking through the content itself?
I seriously don't think it takes that much "game theory" or "academic knowledge" to follow a simple analogy of rock paper scissors and coh... i mean it's not calculus, i don't really know what pseudomath you're talking about... If you think that's too advanced academically and brow beating... were you someone who was upset you weren't accepted in a university so you just actively go after people with degrees, call them out for their academic background, and find irrelevant nitpicking details in some attempt to invalidate SOMETHING they said so that you can feel equal with the "scholars" around you?

If you really want academic papers sure.... I can provide it.... but I assumed you learned addition, subtraction, multiplication and division in school already, or at least rock paper scissors at the playground.

drivebyhobo wrote:
kwok wrote:the old forum and old developers aren't some old testament bible to stick to. Things change, the game changes, and so it makes sense to take the latest information

The past is prologue and the option of "high" vs "standard" goes far beyond BK Mod. On a fundamental level, the option for high resources is a renaming of Dawn Of War 1's "Quickstart". It's purpose was to quickly bring the game to duels between end game units. Similarly, "high resources" for quite a while had the same destructive act of gutting the early game in BK mod.

Cool, I'm glaaad you came back to this. I was afraid you were going to just walk past this and go after the rest of the post without context. Sure, in the past that what it was. And now, it is not. You can see more info on how it's not and even countering opinions in the other thread.

drivebyhobo wrote:
kwok wrote:That's what BIG MAPS are a solution for

Except you have misidentified the solution. There are big maps that are "lock down maps". A map of dimensions 8096x512, would be "big" but also easily locked down. The true element you are looking for is that a map has to offer multiple pathways to victory. There are several Relic made maps that satisfy that requirement.


OOOoookaaaayyy..... you're not entirely wrong but I'm sad that it was assumed I didn't understand nuance and exceptions. But you're speaking as if there was no correlation between literal map dimensions and "multiple pathways to victory". And if you're looking to get nuanced to debase an argument then I can get nuanced too. "Pathways to victory" is SUCH a vague term that it is no doubt a derivation of multiple things like: resource incomes available on the map, map dimensions, playable movement areas, map dimension length to width ratios, etc etc etc. In later posts you talk about other "good maps" but I'd argue they are bad maps (all of them pretty much no higher level players play anymore??). I could go map by map and talk about those if you want, but that's not the point. It's hard to determine the quality of maps one by one for all maps that players could play. The best thing we CAN do is 1. label specifc maps that are recommended for BK, 2. go for generic characteristics that minimize the chance of a "bad map".

I won't go further here since it seems like Walder already made his point: you seem like you just are nitpicking nuance, redirecting and resorting to ad hominem, and trying not to talk about the content of things but all the things around it. What's your deal dude?

Tiger1996 wrote:
drivebyhobo wrote:
Walderschmidt wrote:Kwok wasn't even talking to you, yet you took it upon yourself to call him "so self righteous kwok".

Kwok directly insulted players that prefer standard resources as being self absorbed with their own egos.

Well; despite that I rarely agree with you, drivebyhobo.. but here I actually have to agree.


--------------

Walderschmidt wrote:
drivebyhobo wrote:If I were making arguments dependent on reference to a mathematical model I devised, then yes I would have no problem providing all relevant formulations in a clear and concise format. I would not be writing rambling essays opining on various things sprinkled with a little game theory jargon then preceding to crown myself an academic.

He never crowned himself an academic, but you did, eager to dethrone him from that lofty position for some reason.

You see, I obviously have nothing to do with this argument here.. but since you mentioned my name out of nowhere, with very little respect too... While I actually never expected that coming from your side, but regardless... I'm not going to throw it back at you though, because I clearly have nothing against you, but I'm going to throw it back at the one who sent you here in the first place. Since I'm totally aware that Kwok is the one who sent you here. As I believe you wouldn't even bother to participate in this discussion without him calling you in the first place, and thus.. here is my advice to you; Don't be a doll, you are not involved in any of these discussions here.. and you don't have to be. I mean, u don't have to defend anyone!


OHHhhh hohohoho now THIS is fucking rich. Tiger, unlike you I DON'T go around steam spam pinging players to join on the forum to support whatever I have to say. Which, isn't wrong if players share your opinion then they should be heard. But, I definitely did not put walder up to this and do not put others into doing this. I don't have a problem sharing things that I talk about with walder, but in general those convos are between walder and i and you don't have visibility into that. While I don't have visibility into your convos with others in the forum, i got a glimpse of what it's like before i removed you from my friends list when you openly slander other players for political gain, coerce players to come to the forum to say something, and twist the words like a fake news outlet. I accept we have different cultures and approach situations differently, but I assumed between both our cultures that lying and spreading falsities is seen as a dick move. Don't fucking take this out on walder, you got a problem with me then come to me. If I got a problem with you, you know I fucking come to you with honesty. This is walder's volition.

The only conscious influence I made to move this particular thread was the original post itself. I hope they don't mind me sharing, but both mefisto and elpiojo felt this way about balance and kept talking to me about it. I got impatient at how much they were talking but not participating in the forum in general. I think the more posts and opinions on the forum the better, but to me i felt like they always had an opinion but never posted. Instead I was always used as a proxy to debate on the forum. So I pressured them into posting whatever their opinion was and only then i'd share my opinion here, which I did. I didn't even fully agree with them, I just wanted them to participate to let devs know there are more players than just you, me, warhawks, and whoever else you twisted their arm to coming here.




I'm ready for my ban now, thanks for giving me a chance to slide one more post in.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2368
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: USA early game against PE

Postby MarKr » 09 Aug 2018, 18:27

drivebyhobo wrote:
Walderschmidt wrote:He never once called anybody morons - though you certainly are taking upon yourself to be a mind reader and claim that's what he's saying,

It's in the very thread he linked.
He said there that:
The amount of times I get complained at for my game settings is.... uncountable, obnoxious, and dare I say moronic.
and then he continues with why he considers it "moronic" - in short it is because of map selection where players say that they won't play 3v3 on Goodwood because "the map is too big" but then ask for playing on another 3v3 map which is as big as Goodwood or even bigger. So he does not say that people who don't want to play High Resources are morons, he does not say that people who don't want to play big maps are morons, he says that the reason they give him of why they don't want to play 3v3 on 4v4 is moronic and to be honest in that situation the reason really makes no sense.

drivebyhobo wrote:
Walderschmidt wrote:Where's your academic paper describing a rigorous analysis of these maps and how they satisfy Kwok's requirement?

If I were making arguments dependent on reference to a mathematical model I devised, then yes I would have no problem providing all relevant formulations in a clear and concise format. I would not be writing rambling essays opining on various things sprinkled with a little game theory jargon then preceding to crown myself an academic.
You may also notice that he says there "The reason why I like high resources better than standard is because(...)" so he just says why he preffers some settings and what benefits it can have from his point of view. He gives there some numbers to support his argument. He presents the whole thing as his point of view...I don't understand why you start calling for some academic research...

Guys, it is clear that each of you preffers different game settings, whether it is map or starting resources. Kwok said why he preffers his, drivebyhobo said why he preffers his. Even if we, devs, make some steps to "make clear what we consider the right settings for the game" nobody can force you to play it that way. If we rename the current "High resources" to "standard resources" and current "standard resources" to "low resources", then you still can play the way you're used to. If we remove the "BKModTip" from 1v1 maps and remove those maps from the official mappack, nothing prevents you from downloading those maps again from ingame workshop, so again, nothing really prevents you play the way you're used to.

Can you stop this debate here? From my experience it won't really lead to any constructive resolution anyway. Can you just agree that you disagree on this matter?

Walderschmidt wrote:In short, stop being a dick.
(...)
You're just being a dick here.
As much as I appreciate that you edited the original post to change the original word you used there for a "milder" one, this is still a direct insult and thus flaming which is against the forum rules. This is the first time so it is just a warning for you but, please, try to avoid this in the future.
Image

The New BK Champion
Posts: 129
Joined: 11 Feb 2018, 22:09

Re: USA early game against PE

Postby The New BK Champion » 09 Aug 2018, 19:25

f64.jpg

drivebyhobo
Posts: 97
Joined: 08 Mar 2015, 00:53

Re: USA early game against PE

Postby drivebyhobo » 09 Aug 2018, 22:34

kwok wrote:resorting to ad hominem, and trying not to talk about the content of things but all the things around it. What's your deal dude?

kwok wrote:annoying formula players who get themselves off winning some gimmicky early game meta exploit and then parade around calling themselves “pro” and prostletizing standard res is the way to play

Before I ever posted in this thread, you were in this thread posting ad hominems against standard resource players. You described standard resource players as mad with their own egos and that they get a sexual thrill out of the early game.

That is my central point of contention and why I consider you to be self righteous.


kwok wrote:The amount of times I get complained at for my game settings is.... uncountable, obnoxious, and dare I say moronic.

You really believe that there aren't high resource players that barge into games and aggressively make the very same demands of hosts?

kwok wrote:Before you get so superior drivebyhobo,

MarKr wrote:He presents the whole thing as his point of view...I don't understand why you start calling for some academic research...

This isn't about game settings. Kwok accused me of having an attitude of superiority. I found that to be ironic since in other threads, he has posted long essays with phrases and terms from game theory without any real necessity. I don't think it serves anyone to have posts fluffed up with jargon, as it has already confused people in this very thread (i.e. one person in this thread has already misunderstood the meaning of "game theory").

Therefore, in my opinion, if he feels the need to introduce jargon, then it should be purposeful and accompanied by the "academic research" that would necessitate using those terms. Otherwise, it has no other purpose except for enhancing the user's perception of their own superiority.



kwok wrote:"Pathways to victory" is SUCH a vague term that it is no doubt a derivation of multiple things like: resource incomes available on the map, map dimensions, playable movement areas, map dimension length to width ratios, etc etc etc. In later posts you talk about other "good maps" but I'd argue they are bad maps (all of them pretty much no higher level players play anymore??). I could go map by map and talk about those if you want

I will expound on why I consider those good maps to my criteria, since Walderschmidt missed the mark.

Those maps offer abundant flanking routes, terrain and sector placement that encourages comebacks (Montherme and McGaechen's War particularly), zones where each unit type can thrive and do not rely on lockout zones to build a runaway economy.


Walderschmidt wrote:Edit: McGaechen's War has a fuel lock down zone. Bedum has bridges, so you can lock down those. Same with Montherme. So the point you were making is moot. Womp womp.

Those are not lockdown zones. A foot bridge on Bedum leading out of the base is not a lockdown zone. The fuel points on McGaechen's War are surrounded by flanking routes. Even if you lost the entire left side on McGaechen's, the terrain around the left side of either base is treacherous to attackers looking for a final kill.

MarKr wrote:Can you stop this debate here? From my experience it won't really lead to any constructive resolution anyway. Can you just agree that you disagree on this matter?

Okay. I have limited my post as much as possible to only clarifying my previous posts.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3791
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: USA early game against PE

Postby Tiger1996 » 10 Aug 2018, 04:40

@MarKr
If i respond Kwok's last post, it's going to turn into an absolute shit-storm.. because I will be posting so many screen-shots and clips as well as A LOT of "behind the scenes" data that would be very explosive, and very exposing too. As it's the only possible way to put an end to such ugly snake's poison...
Eventually, I'm afraid this place will only convert into a whole new level of shit-talk(s).

While I believe it's better that we just avoid this on the forum.. you see, a couple of players were previously banned here on this forum... Surprisingly though, Kwok was never banned a single time. While I believe it's his turn now! He even acknowledged himself that he might be deserving a ban:
kwok wrote:I'm ready for my ban now, thanks for giving me a chance to slide one more post in.

Not to mention that he also started a drama post on another topic recently.. when he copied a transcript of a chat conversion that isn't related to the replay I posted anyhow... Don't you think he should be banned at least temporarily for a month now? That would save this place for now at least.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2368
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: USA early game against PE

Postby MarKr » 10 Aug 2018, 08:55

I sort of doubt that would be the case. Even if you showed some screenshots of conversations or whatever then it would most likely look like:
(posting a screen torn out of context where he says something)
Tiger: Here he says this and he means by that (something).
kwok: that is out of context and not what I meant by that, I meant (something else).
(follows 10 post long arguing about what who meant; at the end nothing is solved)

Anyway, I don't know what sort of "screen-shots and clips as well as A LOT of "behind the scenes" data" you would like to post but generally speaking, if those are some PM messages, then it is between those people who sent those messages. If it is something said on Discord or some other chat program, then it is not punishable here, because it did not happen on our forum and I have no idea what "behind the scenes data" means and to be honest I don't really care.

As for the "ban" - I don't see him calling anyone "dick", "asshole" or any other insult, nor was he acting domineering toward us or in any way insulted us. He was sarcastic there, true, but he did not insult anyone and his last sentence in that post was, I would say, also sarcastic. So I don't see a reason for banning him.

I know this will lead nowhere - if I let it continue, this topic will go OT (I mean, more than it already has), will soon have more than 10 pages and I know for sure that it will solve NOTHING. I don't want to deal to with this sort of crap when I'm on my holiday so if you need to continue, do so in PMs or somewhere outside the forum but not here. And a reminder from a topic that is often overlooked or ignored here:
1. If a Mod or Admin tells you something, then do it.We aren't able to cover all possibilities within these guidelines, so the general rule of thumb is: If a Mod says black is white, it's white. Listen to what they tell you to do, regardless of whether you can find a rule about it or not.If you disagree with an admin or mods, send them a private message or complain in the in forum issues stating the reasons why.
Image

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3791
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: USA early game against PE

Postby Tiger1996 » 10 Aug 2018, 09:11

Why do you act as a defense wall for Kwok? He - himself - says that he is ready to get banned after what he typed.. and then you say that you can't see how he deserves a ban? I'm pretty sure if that was "me" who typed that, or anyone else.. they would get banned immediately.

And are you encouraging me to post all the shit that I have here? That sounds very weird.
Oh, and he called people "dicks" and "assholes", directly and indirectly.. a whole lot of times. So I am here calling him back a fking ugly snake that needs to be punished in a very hard hitting way... Don't let me start feeding him the shit he deserves. Because trust me, if I do that... Then this place will be a complete mess, it won't be called a forum anymore.. but rather a place of roasting ugly snakes.

Anyway, you could just lock the topic then.. or whatever.

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1522
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: USA early game against PE

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 10 Aug 2018, 09:35

I urge everybody to calm down, take his breath, and be cool to each others, i won’t repeat myself.
Thanks for your understanding.
Image

Mr. FeministDonut
Posts: 175
Joined: 13 Aug 2015, 21:05

Re: USA early game against PE

Postby Mr. FeministDonut » 10 Aug 2018, 10:41

Actually, I developed a early game option for US in case of PE coming to scout cars.
Pick armor doctrine, make: 2 rifles - AT - rifle - ASAP t2 to get jeeps with recoilles - AT - OP ammo point and upgrade all rifles with grenade launchers.
This will 100% counter even vehicle spam. But that's in case of 1v1 maps, can't say anything about 2v2 where Axis get supreority with mobile vehicles


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MarKr and 1 guest