You think a faction is overpowered? Come here!

[Sorrow]

I think Noy needs some Tylenol. And some skull de-thickening cream for Kristjan.

Ive read all your responses and all noys posts, and the correct answer to the question : "Did you even read my posts?" was : "Yes, but I am choosing to ignore all the important parts"

[turin]

agree (except with "the worst thread ever"), but don't leave out the second possible outcome:
what conclusion(s) can you draw then player who made the claim that faction x is overpowered will loose with the same faction x to arguably more skilled player?
Besides then you can win everybody with one certain faction it won't ultimately prove that the faction is overpowered yet, although it's most likely will be so, others have to repeat your success at first.

*cough* WHAT? I've tried to decipher this and the only reading that makes any sense to me runs directly against the argument you've been making in previous posts.

[Kristjan]

agree (except with "the worst thread ever"), but don't leave out the second possible outcome:
what conclusion(s) can you draw then player who made the claim that faction x is overpowered will loose with the same faction x to arguably more skilled player?
Besides then you can win everybody with one certain faction it won't ultimately prove that the faction is overpowered yet, although it's most likely will be so, others have to repeat your success at first.

*cough* WHAT? I've tried to decipher this and the only reading that makes any sense to me runs directly against the argument you've been making in previous posts.

"always winning person z with faction x" does indeed change the argument:

"the conviction that the game can be played on the matter of gamebalance in order to prove/disprove person z belief that faction x is over/underpowered against the same person z is unfounded"

has to be changed to

"the conviction that the game can be played on the matter of gamebalance in order to prove/disprove person z belief that faction x is over/underpowered against the same person z is most likely unfounded"

Why is it more likely unfounded than founded certainty? Think of how realistic is such person z who wins everyone with faction x? The probability that such person will appear one day can't be ignored, however evidence so far suggest strongly that the possibility is less than 50%.

[Kristjan]

I think Noy needs some Tylenol. And some skull de-thickening cream for Kristjan.

skull de-thickening cream insult is new to me, however try not to go off-topic now please; I'm enjoying a good argumentation on the topic that is ignored by developers and for that matter pretty much pointless:

the MP Devs don't use the forum as any source for balancing decisions. Let me repeat, The balancing decisionmaking process does not have anything to do with the forums

Ive read all your responses and all noys posts, and the correct answer to the question : "Did you even read my posts?" was : "Yes, but I am choosing to ignore all the important parts"

this is your interpretation and not correct answer of mine

[Velensk]

Among other things the point of this thread is not to argue with you about the point of the thread which is what it is becoming. I am beguining to agree with Sorrow, yes your argument is logical and such but it is not realavent to the thread, because balance chanages do not come from this sort of thread. So please stop babbling about how this is not a good way to dicide if the game is balanced or not because it does not have anything to do with how they figure the game is balanced.

What murlock was saying in his post was that the olny way this thread would make a impression on the multiplayer developers is if (as in his example) a player with 3 months of experiance claimed that undead are always going to beat rebles if played a certain way. If he playes a good player and this turns out to be the case then the multiplayer develpers are obviousely going to have to do something about it, but as far as I know this has never happened. However the constant ranting of new players here claiming imbalance gets on the nerves of the developers so they put this thread up here to help stop those sorts of threads from showing up. It is not an attempt to find imbalances. If we were going too test for balancing then we would not do it with a new player.


On the new players side if you just "know" that there is an imbalance, one that has eluded all these realy good people who have played many games against each other, and you want to prove that you "know" your stuff and their game better than them, then here would be your chance to prove it, and switching sides again it is a chance for those good players to smash insolant people like that.

[Kristjan]

Among other things the point of this thread is not to argue with you about the point of the thread which is what it is becoming. I am beguining to agree with Sorrow, yes your argument is logical and such but it is not realavent to the thread, because balance chanages do not come from this sort of thread. So please stop babbling about how this is not a good way to dicide if the game is balanced or not because it does not have anything to do with how they figure the game is balanced.

What murlock was saying in his post was that the olny way this thread would make a impression on the multiplayer developers is if (as in his example) a player with 3 months of experiance claimed that undead are always going to beat rebles if played a certain way. If he playes a good player and this turns out to be the case then the multiplayer develpers are obviousely going to have to do something about it, but as far as I know this has never happened. However the constant ranting of new players here claiming imbalance gets on the nerves of the developers so they put this thread up here to help stop those sorts of threads from showing up. It is not an attempt to find imbalances. If we were going too test for balancing then we would not do it with a new player.

This topic won't accomplish the goal to get rid of the threads about faction balance unless the topic authors take the effort and rephrase it to be more logical and offering real solutions to player concerns.

On the new players side if you just "know" that there is an imbalance, one that has eluded all these realy good people who have played many games against each other, and you want to prove that you "know" your stuff and their game better than them, then here would be your chance to prove it, and switching sides again it is a chance for those good players to smash insolant people like that.

Why slaughter the noobs? Show them that factions are balanced like it is done in other turn-based strategy games; for example explaining them why they shouldn't form an opinion about such complex things like faction balance if they know very little about the game that takes months to learn profoundly.

[Doc Paterson]

Why slaughter the noobs? Show them that factions are balanced like it is done in other turn-based strategy games; for example explaining them why they shouldn't form an opinion about such complex things like faction balance if they know very little about the game that takes months to learn profoundly.

Yeah, that's worked so very well in the past.

[Herduk]

Why slaughter the noobs? Show them that factions are balanced like it is done in other turn-based strategy games; for example explaining them why they shouldn't form an opinion about such complex things like faction balance if they know very little about the game that takes months to learn profoundly.

Yeah, that's worked so very well in the past.

Yes.
I wrote this thread because i was tired and bored by a lot of people who come into forum and start blame that this or that faction is too powerful and there is noway to beat it.
These players NEVER (and i say NEVER) accept what experienced and skilled players explain them about balance issue.
They simply say other people don't know how to play well and NEVER prove their theories.
Maybe they are right and developers have to take a look to something, but until people speak but don't prove, it's useless!

This thread was intended to get in contact between the players who blame about something and players skilled enough to play some match for real.

As i said in the first post, i'm not skilled as a Turin or Elvish Pillager or Doc Paterson, but, if my connection doesn't fall every day as in the last 4 months, i'm offer as volunteer to test some tactics that "are unbeatable 'cause this faction is overpowered!".

Sorry for my bad english, hope everyone can understand the meaning of this post.

[Herduk]

One more thing:
Please post here only if you want to prove something and need someone to play.
I think it's a bit.. stupid discuss here about everything but the real purpose of the thread because this thread it's too messy at this point!

You don't think this thread is usefull? No one here around force you to read it.

[appleide]

Why slaughter the noobs? Show them that factions are balanced like it is done in other turn-based strategy games; for example explaining them why they shouldn't form an opinion about such complex things like faction balance if they know very little about the game that takes months to learn profoundly.

Yeah, that's worked so very well in the past.

Would be interesting if some MP-tutorial scenarios were made? It would teach newbies Multiplayer ettiquette as well as stuff like not to recruit only scouts to start with?.

Eg, Make an alternate Blitz, (Multiplayer_1p_Tutorial_Blitz), where every time the player does something, some dialog comes up and tells them what's wrong with what they did. You might also consider putting some sort of right-click enabled unit-guide on each unit for each unit-type. It would be alot of work to cover the default era, but you only need to do this once and copy all the macroes over to each MP map, and perhaps change a couple of dialog settings/ messages specific to the map.

Example Action:
In Blitz, player recruits his second scout. New dialog "Careful! In smaller maps such as Blitz where there are only 7 or so villages per player you only need 1 or 2 scouts to capture villages / see through fog. Reason for this is that normal units fight better than scout units and perhaps get to a village only 1, at most, 2 turns later than a scout."

Somebody can write better than me at these dialogues, but you get my point.

[PingPangQui]

Good idea, though this would be indeed a lot of work, even if you just want to cover one faction.

[Noy]

Yeah, that's worked so very well in the past.

Would be interesting if some MP-tutorial scenarios were made? It would teach newbies Multiplayer ettiquette as well as stuff like not to recruit only scouts to start with?.

Those aren't the people who are the problem. If they are reflective enough to play a tutorial before jumping into MP, then they are unlikely to come on here and state their all knowing perspective on how to play a game.

[thingythekid]

This might be a really stupid suggestion in some way that I don't understand, but why don't you make each test consist of two games, with each player playing each side once per test? That way both factions are tested fairly.

[Tom of wesnoth]

I nearly always loose on evles so i thik they are over powerd!

[Blarumyrran]

I nearly always loose on evles so i thik they are over powerd!

hmhmm, i guess thats a proof enough. mp devs, get to work! now!