Factional jack or specialist?

[mm_]

Sometimes I take random, sometimes I specialise. I hate Rebels, though I like their shamans and mermen, so I usually choose northerners (assasins! yay! getem nagas!), knalgans (backstam him, thief! go get them! thunderer!) or loyalists (duelist power! My horsemen will kill you!).

[Yoyobuae]

People supporting imbalance have used the arguement "why should learning all 6 factions give you an advantage?", which is not the case with over 90% of the players. That 90% is just out of my head and am pretty sure they all cannot play all the factions equally well. Going by this theory people only start playing random after gaining acceptable playing level with each faction, which is ridiculous and not the case and players learning to play random have a bigger disadvantage comepared to faction pickers.

The vast majority of games I play (ladder mostly) I face random faction. If it's also true that most of these players don't know how to play all factions, and because of this they're indeed at a disadvantage, why do they keep choosing random? Is it also true that the mayority of players like to play at a disadvantage? Or are they all delusional thinking random gives them an advantage when reality is the opposite?

On a final note if you can prove a certain intial recruit which you pick with reasons is totally useless against a particular match up, then it is even worth arguing, else i consider this arguement finished.

You did read the thread about initial recruits for drakes vs random, right?

Finally, how long ago did you make the switch to random? I mean, when was the last time you picked your faction on a competitive game?

It's easy to just go on and on about how random doesn't provide any advantage, but never pick anything but random. How can you tell the difference anymore?

[psychic]

1) I chose, most of the time i pick drake.
2) I'll play any fraction other then rebels if i'm asked to change.
3) I don't like rebels, the fractions concept of terrain based doge factor as the primary method of victory just doesn't inspire me.

How about recruiting mage and fighting drakes? 4 out of 6 units with 50% fire resistance, and the two that don't are chaotic enough to break past the weakness and win at night. Winding up with a 20 gold investment that can counter 2/6 of your opponents recruits half of the time, and loses on every other occasion.

Augur have 2 less base hp then mages. at night they deal the exact same damage to each other [6-3],
Augur costs 16 gold, has 6 moves, heal +4, and has a 4-2 melee [5-2 at night].
Mage costs 20, has 5 moves and a 5-1 melee. So don't go on about how a mage can compete with augur at night.

The mage can attack skirmishers at night, but that 6-3 better kill it because 2 skirmisher melee battles at night more often then not finish a mage (dependent on traits and footing)

I'm not arguing for or against nerf to the random choice, I'm not suggesting that loyalists are bad at fighting drakes, and i don't believe wizards are bad units. I do however, think that insisting that you can have a mage on your initial recruit line when battling a drake and not be at any kind of disadvantage is wrong.

Looks tasty, just the kind of thing i was expecting. First of all, why do you pick a mage in your initial recruit? They are not particularly fast and hence are not required for the first 2 turns for village grabbing. As a loyalist they definitely should not feature in the initial recruit because you get to attack only on the second dawn/day and you have ample time in between to not pick them in case the opponents are drakes.
As a loyalist you make attacks on the dawn/day and it is not worth attacking a saurian in the night during most situations. You arguement is like telling i attack an adept with mage at night(his time of day) and it dies and you tell it is a bad recruit against UD.

The vast majority of games I play (ladder mostly) I face random faction. If it's also true that most of these players don't know how to play all factions, and because of this they're indeed at a disadvantage, why do they keep choosing random? Is it also true that the mayority of players like to play at a disadvantage? Or are they all delusional thinking random gives them an advantage when reality is the opposite?

You did read the thread about initial recruits for drakes vs random, right?

Finally, how long ago did you make the switch to random? I mean, when was the last time you picked your faction on a competitive game?

It's easy to just go on and on about how random doesn't provide any advantage, but never pick anything but random. How can you tell the difference anymore?

Your only eternal reason why players choose random : for ADVANTAGE

Reasons other than that:
1. Not inclined to a particular faction.
2. Cant make up mind to choose a particular leader(my case).
3. Lazy to pick from the starting screen, for random you just press enter.
4. Variety.
5. Challenge.
6. Learning all factions.
Those are the reasons immediately off my head, i am pretty sure i can come up with more.

Yoyobuae sorry if this offends you, out of all the posts in the drakes vs random initial recruits thread, there was just one i repeat ONE post by Caphriel which said he finds drakes to be the hardest initial recruit against random and you take a single personal opinion as your reason to tell me that they have hardest initial recruits?
It has been clearly mentioned in that thread not to recruit a burner in the first turn, same as a mage. I will post what my initial drake recruits are and their reasons in that thread for you

I am being honest with you, when i first came to multiplayer after finishing HttT campaign, i had only used rebels and for the first few games i picked rebels. I found it hard to play with them and against every faction because i did not even know how defense worked at that time XD. How to play series was truly an amazing piece of material which clearly told how different factions work and that was the starting point of my random career. Ofcourse some material is outdated and i developed my own initial recruits for the different factions by getting owned the first few 1v1 matches.

Like i have said earlier, i only pick random because i cannot decide which leader to play.

On a final note if you can prove a certain intial recruit which you pick with reasons is totally useless against a particular match up, then it is even worth arguing, else i consider this arguement finished.

The above statement still holds true, if you can prove me why you pick a certain unit in your initial for any faction and show me that they are completely useless in a matchup we can continue further.

[Eskon]

As has been detailed in various threads time and time again: Picking Random is a trade, of one set of advantages for a set of disadvantages. You can't deny that having your faction hidden limits the opponent's choices in the initial recruit phase. Neither can you deny that being able to choose your leader along with the faction is a definite advantage over the Random situation - Just as there is a risk that your mage recruit is useless against a drake opponent (solution: Don't recruit a mage), there is an equal risk of getting a Red Mage or Fire Drake as a leader against a chosen or Random Drake opponent. That is not the only example of one leader being clearly superior to others; we've got six move leaders versus five move leaders, Poachers vs. Quick Dwarves, Lieutenant vs. everything else issues at work too.

This isn't about Random having any advantages at all - it has - it's about whether this advantage is unfair, to the detriment of game balance, considering the disadvantage that goes with it. In my eyes, it's a fair trade.

[psychic]

As has been detailed in various threads time and time again: Picking Random is a trade, of one set of advantages for a set of disadvantages. You can't deny that having your faction hidden limits the opponent's choices in the initial recruit phase. Neither can you deny that being able to choose your leader along with the faction is a definite advantage over the Random situation - Just as there is a risk that your mage recruit is useless against a drake opponent (solution: Don't recruit a mage), there is an equal risk of getting a Red Mage or Fire Drake as a leader against a chosen or Random Drake opponent. That is not the only example of one leader being clearly superior to others; we've got six move leaders versus five move leaders, Poachers vs. Quick Dwarves, Lieutenant vs. everything else issues at work too.

This isn't about Random having any advantages at all - it has - it's about whether this advantage is unfair, to the detriment of game balance, considering the disadvantage that goes with it. In my eyes, it's a fair trade.

Eskon pls dont try to force your view on someone else, just because ppl have argued about random have advantages/disadvantages and since it is still under debate you cannot conclude that imbalance exists. It is my view with reasons that there is no imbalance.

[Yoyobuae]

Yoyobuae sorry if this offends you, out of all the posts in the drakes vs random initial recruits thread, there was just one i repeat ONE post by Caphriel which said he finds drakes to be the hardest initial recruit against random and you take a single personal opinion as your reason to tell me that they have hardest initial recruits?

I think you have misunderstood. I pointed you towards that thread as an example that initial recruits become substantially harder against a random opponent.

I am being honest with you, when i first came to multiplayer after finishing HttT campaign, i had only used rebels and for the first few games i picked rebels. I found it hard to play with them and against every faction because i did not even know how defense worked at that time XD. How to play series was truly an amazing piece of material which clearly told how different factions work and that was the starting point of my random career. Ofcourse some material is outdated and i developed my own initial recruits for the different factions by getting owned the first few 1v1 matches.

Like i have said earlier, i only pick random because i cannot decide which leader to play.

Nice to know.

[Megaprimetron]

The above statement still holds true, if you can prove me why you pick a certain unit in your initial for any faction and show me that they are completely useless in a matchup we can continue further.

You clanged your requirement a bit... I hope i don't have to tell you that if you *know* there is a revenant on the other side of the map calling up an undead horde that a mage where your spearman/archer normally goes would be a good idea.

Eskon, you are probably right, my only problem is that it's easy to get a great leader as well as a bad one. Drake Flare is just as likely as orc assassin, this is slightly compounded by the fact that many less useful leaders where taken out of the random selector or given boosts. It's true that someone who picked elf captain and is battling a randomized Knalgan rouge is a match up that will make the advantages of both choices obvious. But when that elf captain is up to fight a human lieutenant picked randomly, the disadvantage of the random choice is unseeable.

[psychic]

The above statement still holds true, if you can prove me why you pick a certain unit in your initial for any faction and show me that they are completely useless in a matchup we can continue further.

You clanged your requirement a bit... I hope i don't have to tell you that if you *know* there is a revenant on the other side of the map calling up an undead horde that a mage where your spearman/archer normally goes would be a good idea.

Why is it hard for ppl to accept they understood it wrong instead of blaming the poster?

Pls try to understand there is no strategic advantage while recruiting mage in the first turn even if you know you are facing undead because mage will anyway be useless in the first night.

[Eskon]

As has been detailed in various threads time and time again: Picking Random is a trade, of one set of advantages for a set of disadvantages. You can't deny that having your faction hidden limits the opponent's choices in the initial recruit phase. Neither can you deny that being able to choose your leader along with the faction is a definite advantage over the Random situation - Just as there is a risk that your mage recruit is useless against a drake opponent (solution: Don't recruit a mage), there is an equal risk of getting a Red Mage or Fire Drake as a leader against a chosen or Random Drake opponent. That is not the only example of one leader being clearly superior to others; we've got six move leaders versus five move leaders, Poachers vs. Quick Dwarves, Lieutenant vs. everything else issues at work too.

This isn't about Random having any advantages at all - it has - it's about whether this advantage is unfair, to the detriment of game balance, considering the disadvantage that goes with it. In my eyes, it's a fair trade.

Eskon pls dont try to force your view on someone else, just because ppl have argued about random have advantages/disadvantages and since it is still under debate you cannot conclude that imbalance exists. It is my view with reasons that there is no imbalance.

Did you even try to read my post? Neverwhere have I concluded that there's an imbalance. In fact, let me check. Why, yes, the last sentence was trying to put forward the hypothesis that there is, in fact, no imbalance, as in, choosing Random is a fair trade of advantage for disadvantage. And since when is stating one's opinion equivalent to forcing it onto others? Do I have to post a string of "I think"s and "IMHO"s or "Lo, I dost not consider my words divine wisdom, for verily, I dost consider myself to be merely a participant in a forum discussion"?

Yoyobuae is right: Playing against Random makes initial recruiting harder because you don't know which set of opposing units you'll fight. Examples of this are the mage vs. Drake, or assassin vs. Undead, or augur vs. Undead. This is where the advantage of choosing Random lies. I haven't based this view on anyone else's opinion either, or Yoyobuae's for that matter; it reflects my own playing experience.

Yoyobuae is also wrong: Random is not a strictly and inherently superior choice, because there is a disadvantage associated with it that keeps it in check. Just like having your initial recruit choice be somewhat restricted by the need to be prepared for all the factions - you can still recruit the majority of your faction's units quite safely, and react later once you know the opponent's faction - is a disadvantage, having your leader decided by the roll of a dice is one as well. And yes, I still think it is a disadvantage, even if the roll can give you the good leaders; just like a heavy infantry might miss all two strikes versus a goblin spearman while he gets poked in return for 12 damage. Just another element of luck.

In the end, it's a question of what you want from the game. I think it's sweet that there is a Random choice, and that you should take an effort to make it a balanced choice. You could take it out and the game as a whole would be easier to balance, sure, but the same could be said for, say, the entire Drake faction. Balance is one thing; the other is variety. You want to have as much stuff in the game as you can, but still keep the game balanced, i. e. fun to play. The Random choice is interesting because it adds another layer of risk management to a game this is basically about risks and the management thereof to begin with. It also gives new players an incentive to venture forth and learn to play all the factions without feeling like they are wasting their time. (The negative wording of this aspect is "It forces new players to learn how to play all the factions to stay competitive", to which my rebuttal would be "They have to do that anyway - you can't become good at playing one faction without knowing its matchups, and you can't know its matchups without knowing the opposing factions")

[psychic]

Did you even try to read my post?

This is one of the stupidest and irritating way to argue. Ask that question to yourself before posting it. What do you want me to answer i got a perfect 6/6 vision and that i read before replying?

And such question do not contribute to any useful arguments.

[Eskon]

Accusing me of forcing my views onto others was not the most brilliant piece of diplomacy I have seen either.

[psychic]

As has been detailed in various threads time and time again: Picking Random is a trade, of one set of advantages for a set of disadvantages. You can't deny that having your faction hidden limits the opponent's choices in the initial recruit phase. Neither can you deny that being able to choose your leader along with the faction is a definite advantage over the Random situation - Just as there is a risk that your mage recruit is useless against a drake opponent (solution: Don't recruit a mage), there is an equal risk of getting a Red Mage or Fire Drake as a leader against a chosen or Random Drake opponent. That is not the only example of one leader being clearly superior to others; we've got six move leaders versus five move leaders, Poachers vs. Quick Dwarves, Lieutenant vs. everything else issues at work too.

This isn't about Random having any advantages at all - it has - it's about whether this advantage is unfair, to the detriment of game balance, considering the disadvantage that goes with it. In my eyes, it's a fair trade.

Did you even try to read my post? Neverwhere have I concluded that there's an imbalance. In fact, let me check. Why, yes, the last sentence was trying to put forward the hypothesis that there is, in fact, no imbalance, as in, choosing Random is a fair trade of advantage for disadvantage. And since when is stating one's opinion equivalent to forcing it onto others? Do I have to post a string of "I think"s and "IMHO"s or "Lo, I dost not consider my words divine wisdom, for verily, I dost consider myself to be merely a participant in a forum discussion"?

Well Eskon for all the fancy usage of english:

You can't deny that having your faction hidden limits the opponent's choices in the initial recruit phase. Neither can you deny that being able to choose your leader along with the faction is a definite advantage over the Random situation

The above sentence sounds as though you are stating a well debated fact where as it is merely your opinion on the issue.

This isn't about Random having any advantages at all - it has - it's about whether this advantage is unfair, to the detriment of game balance, considering the disadvantage that goes with it. In my eyes, it's a fair trade.

From what i can understand in simple words the above quote tells that "the discussion is not about random having no advantages, but the advantages are balanced out with the disadvantages" which is in direct contradiction to my viewpoint that random or for that matter picking a faction has no advantage/disadvantage outright.

But you try to twist it saying:

Why, yes, the last sentence was trying to put forward the hypothesis that there is, in fact, no imbalance, as in, choosing Random is a fair trade of advantage for disadvantage.

I am not a native speaker of English, pls someone enlighten me if i have understood something wrong or Eskon is twistings his words to win the arguement.

Accusing me of forcing my views onto others was not the most brilliant piece of diplomacy I have seen either.

I think the above evidence should show if it was a false accusation or not and dont modify your previous posted message to make my arguement null like you have done with the wall of text reply.

[Megaprimetron]

Why, yes, the last sentence was trying to put forward the hypothesis that there is, in fact, no imbalance, as in, choosing Random is a fair trade of advantage for disadvantage.

I am not a native speaker of English, pls someone enlighten me if i have understood something wrong or Eskon is twistings his words to win the arguement.

Eskon is simply stating the obvious, choosing random adds elements that put a player ahead of his opponent. But choosing random can also can also hurt the player, because it comes with a risk.

Both of these things are true, incontestable, and indeed about as solid as a balance issue can be. Attempting to prove either of them completely false with words will get you about as far as eradicating a stone wall with a plastic spoon.

He then goes on to state that he believes the elements that make it easier to win when you play random break even with the risk that makes it harder, to create balance. That is he belief and he is attempting to get others to see it from his perspective, at least for a moment.

I think the above evidence should show if it was a false accusation or not and dont modify your previous posted message to make my arguement null like you have done with the wall of text reply.

I did notice his edit before, but he didn't change what he believed, he just attempted to explain himself more thoroughly because it seems you misunderstood him. Also, he is not twisting his words, just attempting to get you to understand him, because in many of your previous remarks you seem to misinterpret him.

[psychic]

Eskon is simply stating the obvious, choosing random adds elements that put a player ahead of his opponent. But choosing random can also can also hurt the player, because it comes with a risk.

Both of these things are true, incontestable, and indeed about as solid as a balance issue can be. Attempting to prove either of them completely false with words will get you about as far as eradicating a stone wall with a plastic spoon.

He then goes on to state that he believes the elements that make it easier to win when you play random break even with the risk that makes it harder, to create balance. That is he belief and he is attempting to get others to see it from his perspective, at least for a moment.

I think the above evidence should show if it was a false accusation or not and dont modify your previous posted message to make my arguement null like you have done with the wall of text reply.

I did notice his edit before, but he didn't change what he believed, he just attempted to explain himself more thoroughly because it seems you misunderstood him. Also, he is not twisting his words, just attempting to get you to understand him, because in many of your previous remarks you seem to misinterpret him.

Wow it is really hard to get a point across by posting. To make things really really clear, i totally understand what he has in his mind.

Both of these things are true, incontestable, and indeed about as solid as a balance issue can be. Attempting to prove either of them completely false with words will get you about as far as eradicating a stone wall with a plastic spoon.

The words in bold means that it is a fact like elf fighter has 4 strikes in the current default version, which is not true, it is just your viewpoint. His arguments if you read properly were of similar tone. Hope you understand.

[Megaprimetron]

If you believe that an orc slayer leader and a death blade leader are on equal ground, and that building 2 augurs at the start works just as well on undead as it does in a drake mirror, then i got nothin' to work with. There is no way i can explain my logic in a way you can understand while we are in a different realities.