You think a faction is overpowered? Come here!

[Velensk]

Maybe you don't get it. Experienced players already know its balanced. This thread is not for those people. Most people who come on here and says the game isn't, aren't experienced, and can't accept that it is, so this is one way of showing them.

As I said before the game already has been thoroughly tested on the "compeditive" lvl (or at least as close as you can get in Wesnoth)

People who come in here and say x faction is underpowered against y faction get told to tell us why, and it almost always comes out to a tactic/unit combonation. We arn't proving that the factions are balanced to ourselves we already know that. What we are doing is proving it to the people who complain that a certain tactic is not rigged by showing them how it is not. Yes the tacics arn't the olny thing that determines the outcome of the match, there are also execution/adaption/luck. However any tactic that truely effectivly counters another can do it regaurdless of the skill lvl of the player doing it, because everything is balanced for experts. If a tactic olny counters another if the other player is not a very good player than what is the point? Then it is up to adaption which is changing tactics mid match, so if you are being forced to adapt an new tactic then there must have been a problem with your old tactic. The final factor is luck which dose come in which is why we play multiple matches to even things out.

Now if you are coming in and claiming that a faction is unbalanced agaisnt another without giving a specific tacic/unitcombination/stratagy then the best you can do is what everyone is doing and play many games, and observe trends. This sort of thing is always and already happening whenever two experianced players play each other and someone just coming into the forum and proclaiming that he thinks that things are unbalanced is not going to cause as much of a stir as an experianced player who can explain what he thinks is wrong and what he thinks ought to be done about it. If this is the case then that gets tested. A few threads like this pop-up every once in awhile, but they get their own threads and are very specific problems and possible answers.

EDIT: As too your last question, Wesnoth has a much wider range of styles/decisions, stratagy especialy stratagy that allows room for a wide range of styles/random numbers tends to be a little to abstract to scintificaly research.
EDIT2: Maybe you could get some great mathamatician to come in go through each of the million or so diffrent variations and aprouches and variantions on each approuch for each map and develop a risk beniffit chart for every possible move/encounter to come up with a mathamatical way to prove that one style is better than the rest or that some match-up is truely unbalanced by a slight margine, but it would be a rather silly thing to do.

[Noy]

Wow, two paragraphs and nothing remotely new or interesting said... what a waste.


Also read my signature is appropriate for the suggestion of mathamtically discovering a "balanced strategy."

[Kristjan]

Maybe you don't get it. Experienced players already know its balanced. This thread is not for those people. Most people who come on here and says the game isn't, aren't experienced, and can't accept that it is, so this is one way of showing them.

As I said before the game already has been thoroughly tested on the "compeditive" lvl (or at least as close as you can get in Wesnoth)

People who come in here and say x faction is underpowered against y faction get told to tell us why, and it almost always comes out to a tactic/unit combonation. We arn't proving that the factions are balanced to ourselves we already know that. What we are doing is proving it to the people who complain that a certain tactic is not rigged by showing them how it is not. Yes the tacics arn't the olny thing that determines the outcome of the match, there are also execution/adaption/luck. However any tactic that truely effectivly counters another can do it regaurdless of the skill lvl of the player doing it, because everything is balanced for experts. If a tactic olny counters another if the other player is not a very good player than what is the point? Then it is up to adaption which is changing tactics mid match, so if you are being forced to adapt an new tactic then there must have been a problem with your old tactic. The final factor is luck which dose come in which is why we play multiple matches to even things out.

Now if you are coming in and claiming that a faction is unbalanced agaisnt another without giving a specific tacic/unitcombination/stratagy then the best you can do is what everyone is doing and play many games, and observe trends. This sort of thing is always and already happening whenever two experianced players play each other and someone just coming into the forum and proclaiming that he thinks that things are unbalanced is not going to cause as much of a stir as an experianced player who can explain what he thinks is wrong and what he thinks ought to be done about it. If this is the case then that gets tested. A few threads like this pop-up every once in awhile, but they get their own threads and are very specific problems and possible answers.

EDIT: As too your last question, Wesnoth has a much wider range of styles/decisions, stratagy especialy stratagy that allows room for a wide range of styles/random numbers tends to be a little to abstract to scintificaly research.
EDIT2: Maybe you could get some great mathamatician to come in go through each of the million or so diffrent variations and aprouches and variantions on each approuch for each map and develop a risk beniffit chart for every possible move/encounter to come up with a mathamatical way to prove that one style is better than the rest or that some match-up is truely unbalanced by a slight margine, but it would be a rather silly thing to do.

you still did not comment on how do you interpret the outcome of these organized events.
I'm eager to know what conclusion you come to if rebels win knalgans then person x complained that rebels can't win knalgans or then the same person x complained that knalgans can't win rebels.

[Kristjan]

Maybe you don't get it. Experienced players already know its balanced. This thread is not for those people. Most people who come on here and says the game isn't, aren't experienced, and can't accept that it is, so this is one way of showing them.

exactly you beat the inexperienced player with experienced player! But whatever conclusion you come to about balanced factions under such circumstances can't be taken seriously

#edit:
unexperienced>inexperienced

[Weeksy]

you show them two or three replays of knalgans beating rebels on standard 1v1 maps, without getting super lucky, then you show them rebels beating knalgans on the same maps without getting super lucky, probably the same player on knalgans and the same player on rebels the whole time.

[Kristjan]

you show them two or three replays of knalgans beating rebels on standard 1v1 maps, without getting super lucky, then you show them rebels beating knalgans on the same maps without getting super lucky, probably the same player on knalgans and the same player on rebels the whole time.

please take notice that my concern is not balanced/unbalanced factions;
my concern is the misleading title of this sticky forum topic:

You think a faction is overpowered? Come here!

this is unacceptable since the solution proposed is:

Organize here some match to test your statement!

[Noy]

Maybe you don't get it. Experienced players already know its balanced. This thread is not for those people. Most people who come on here and says the game isn't, aren't experienced, and can't accept that it is, so this is one way of showing them.

exactly you beat the inexperienced player with experienced player! But whatever conclusion you come to about balanced factions under such circumstances can't be taken seriously

#edit:
unexperienced>inexperienced

WTF ? I did not say that at all. Balancing decisions are based on extensive playtesting between experienced players. Thats the majority of matches I've played, numbering well into the thousands. And I don't normally play with less experienced players unless I have to because there isn't a suitable match to play. I don't find it that rewarding to crush an inexperienced player, although sometimes it is fun to play a match where you don't have to have your game face on all the time.

It is annoying however to hear people claim the game is not balanced, when they have little experience on the matter. And for that reason, 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. The overwhelming majority of posters on here who do claim that the game is unbalanced are wrong, and "disproving them" is not about making the game balance better, but showing their hubris for what it is.

[Weeksy]

can you think of any way other than actual gameplay to demonstrate that factions are balanced? I'm not saying that you need to organize a match (although that does help), I'm just saying that the people who know how well the game is balanced (very), have two ways of demonstrating the balance through gameplay, and those are organizing a match (and thus creating a replay) or showing a replay, and those aren't always avaliable.

[Velensk]

exactly you beat the inexperienced player with experienced player! But whatever conclusion you come to about balanced factions under such circumstances can't be taken seriously

#edit:
unexperienced>inexperienced

WTF ? I did not say that at all. Balancing decisions are based on extensive playtesting between experienced players. Thats the majority of matches I've played, numbering well into the thousands. And I don't normally play with less experienced players unless I have to because there isn't a suitable match to play. I don't find it that rewarding to crush an inexperienced player, although sometimes it is fun to play a match where you don't have to have your game face on all the time.

It is annoying however to hear people claim the game is not balanced, when they have little experience on the matter. And for that reason, 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. The overwhelming majority of posters on here who do claim that the game is unbalanced are wrong, and "disproving them" is not about making the game balance better, but showing their hubris for what it is.

Thus speaks a multiplayer developer. If you are going to try to persuade someone that there is something wrong with the meathod then it's him.

[Kristjan]

WTF ? I did not say that at all. Balancing decisions are based on extensive playtesting between experienced players. Thats the majority of matches I've played, numbering well into the thousands. And I don't normally play with less experienced players unless I have to because there isn't a suitable match to play. I don't find it that rewarding to crush an inexperienced player, although sometimes it is fun to play a match where you don't have to have your game face on all the time.

It is annoying however to hear people claim the game is not balanced, when they have little experience on the matter. And for that reason, 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. The overwhelming majority of posters on here who do claim that the game is unbalanced are wrong, and "disproving them" is not about making the game balance better, but showing their hubris for what it is.

Thus speaks a multiplayer developer. If you are going to try to persuade someone that there is something wrong with the meathod then it's him.

You lost my respect when either you did not pay close enough attention to what I said or you ignored it, I already covered almost everything he said but you still could not seem to get the point of this thread.

Forum thread is an invitation for people who think that some factions have more/less power and thus they are offered to play a game with their "overpowered" or against their "underpowered" faction respectively. Can't anyone else see how awfully flawed is to assume there is anything to prove about balanced factions under such conditions?
What really is done in this case - various tactics and countermeasures of the gameplay are shown and they've been taught more things; as a result they've got deeper understanding (hopefully) of the game.

p.s. too bad that respect can be lost by disagreement

[Velensk]

Just a minor note: that last paragraph was me being annoyed about 5 minutes after I wrote it I edited it out because I realised that it is not entirely true. Apparently I did it while you were quoteing. You have a certain type of logic however while using logic you seem to forget utility.

As has been stated before, many multiple times, this is not a thread where the experianced players are asking for feedback, this is a thread designed to avoid all the x faction is unbalanced against y threads that pop up every month or so. The reason it is not is because if we did ask for feedback on factional balance and allowed any newbie with a big opinion of himself to give feedback, we'd have not end to debate/flames. So instead whenever someone says that a certain match-up is unbalanced we say prove your point and try to beat us. Yes they may be inexperianced but if they are, they should not be making comments on balance. Especialy when pretty much all experianced players agree that the game in very well balanced.

I suppose what you are saying is that what if the inexperianced player is right dispite being inexperianced and when pretty much all of the best players agree that the game is well balanced. Then he would not be in a position to prove his point by play testing. The problem is with the improbability of this situation compared to the number of newbies who do not know what they are talking about.

[Kristjan]

Just a minor note: that last paragraph was me being annoyed about 5 minutes after I wrote it I edited it out because I realised that it is not entirely true. Apparently I did it while you were quoteing. You have a certain type of logic however while using logic you seem to forget utility.

As has been stated before, many multiple times, this is not a thread where the experianced players are asking for feedback, this is a thread designed to avoid all the x faction is unbalanced against y threads that pop up every month or so. The reason it is not is because if we did ask for feedback on factional balance and allowed any newbie with a big opinion of himself to give feedback, we'd have not end to debate/flames. So instead whenever someone says that a certain match-up is unbalanced we say prove your point and try to beat us. Yes they may be inexperianced but if they are, they should not be making comments on balance. Especialy when pretty much all experianced players agree that the game in very well balanced.

I suppose what you are saying is that what if the inexperianced player is right dispite being inexperianced and when pretty much all of the best players agree that the game is well balanced. Then he would not be in a position to prove his point by play testing. The problem is with the improbability of this situation compared to the number of newbies who do not know what they are talking about.

newcomers generally shouldn't be taken seriously about such complex issues as factions balance in the first place however, doing the sticky post that supposedly will prove them that they are wrong and thus

is a thread designed to avoid all the x faction is unbalanced against y threads that pop up every month or so

is illogical while not offering any true ways to prove it (statistics; skilled players opinions; etc.)

how would you react if one day finding yourself suddenly enjoying long distance running were offered a chance to compete against experienced long distance runner to prove that you are wrong about knalgans athletic shoes having advantage over loyalists athletic shoes?

going back to the topic
"You think a faction is overpowered? Come here!"
and then seeing there a way to prove your claim of one faction being under/overpowered - similar to analogy of athletic shoes above^

is it not obvious that this is all about proving your (that is if you were newbie) incompetence or inexperience in that area and not much else?

[Velensk]

What the issue here seems to be, is that you beleive that the point of this thread is to prove that the factions are balanced, which is not the case. The point of this thread as far as I've observed is to squish the people who would otherwize rant and create other threads about it.

Example Situation:
randon new player:X faction is unbalanced Y can't beat it as long as X is playing decently.
Community: O.K. prove it.
Experianced player beats New player

Result 1
New player: He olny beat me because he played better (or sometimes they claim it was luck)
Community: Maybe if he playes better he knows what he is talking about when he says the factions are balanced don't you think.
<from here it veries>

Result 2
New player: Ok, now I see how that works.
Community: Glad to be of assistance.

Result 3
New player: Ok, I've changed my mind Y faction always beats X faction
<back to top>

There are a few other results but this thread was originaly created to keep all those threads in one place, I think it was created after the guy who thought that massed woses was a tactic loyalists (whos main unit uses peirce) would have a hard time beating.

EDIT: Yes we are proving the incompitince of the players who claim they know more about faction balance than the experianced players.

[Kristjan]

What the issue here seems to be, is that you beleive that the point of this thread is to prove that the factions are balanced, which is not the case. The point of this thread as far as I've observed is to squish the people who would otherwize rant and create other threads about it.

let them rant

Example Situation:
randon new player:X faction is unbalanced Y can't beat it as long as X is playing decently.
Community: O.K. prove it.
Experianced player beats New player

I assume X side is played by new player.
By beating him you prove his inexperience/lack of skill or that he did not play "decently" on the side of X. We can't jump to the conclusion of side Y and X being balanced, because side X was not played "decently".

Result 1
New player: He olny beat me because he played better (or sometimes they claim it was luck)
Community: Maybe if he playes better he knows what he is talking about when he says the factions are balanced don't you think.
<from here it veries>

New player lost, but we should not conclude that now whatever winner says must be so because he/she beat new player.

Result 2
New player: Ok, now I see how that works.
Community: Glad to be of assistance.

the process of learning

Result 3
New player: Ok, I've changed my mind Y faction always beats X faction
<back to top>

what? That is exactly what we do not want the new player to think of the gameplay!

There are a few other results but this thread was originaly created to keep all those threads in one place, I think it was created after the guy who thought that massed woses was a tactic loyalists (whos main unit uses peirce) would have a hard time beating.

EDIT: Yes we are proving the incompitince of the players who claim they know more about faction balance than the experianced players.

your reply is a bit messy - results should be renamed to "common new player reactions then he/she looses" and why haven't you shared your thoughts on what happens if new player wins

[Noy]

Kristijan are you even reading my responses?
let me make this simple for you, because apparently after three separate posts of saying the same thing, you can't comprehend what I'm saying.

This thread has nothing to do with the balancing process. Balancing decisions come out of games between expert players.


Your perfect world where people of experience are listened to over people who aren't is a fantasy, this forum is littered with countless threads of people saying X faction is over/underpowered, and a whole host of other people saying "yeah I agree" even though they have the same skill level. And when you argue with them, their answers sound plausable but anyone with serious skill know they are wrong. The best way is to show them how they are wrong, hence this thread. Should we just let them play poorly and not care? Maybe, but its annoying to see the forum clutterred up like this, and I'd like to have more good opponents to play against.

However it seems as if you don't understand any of this; you're act with the same arrogance and ignorance people find annoying in new players, instead you're doing so about this topic.