Page 2 of 8
Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:29 pm
by HSharp
Yeah I would say TF can be pretty damn cheesy as well, for TF I think either don't allow to rip to TF miners or reduce the energy and/or recharge rate. And GT Exp w/Research needs perking, like mini-dis sucks on everything except capships which is it's only use and although GT AP HTT's are pretty powerful mg3 eats it up nicely so I am thinking why not AP Heavy Ints which have more mass and hull! (but higher hull makes them a bit more like belter ints) or something like Peenix's vulcan cannons, GT Sup could do with a Zeus 2, perhaps even pulse lasers 2, GT Tac needs no perks at all!
Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:33 pm
by Broodwich
eh, this is the pug vs sg argument. People are retards, and retard-proof tech wins games. i wouldnt mind nerfing bios and tf just so that every com stops going them every game, but then it will be back to ic v ic for all sgs because ic already crushes those factions if your team doesnt have its head up its ass. Either people dont care or dont know enough to boost lt ints to miners and destroy them within the first 10 minutes of the game
Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:34 pm
by Makida
_SRM_Nuke wrote:QUOTE (_SRM_Nuke @ Apr 5 2010, 05:28 PM) So you want to balance factions based on newbie comms?
No, I am merely saying that if a faction is preferred by vet comms, and less experienced coms don't like that faction very much, and the faction turns out to be very successful, this success may be because so many good comms prefer to play on that faction, and so few bad comms play with it, rather than because the faction itself is unbalanced. So then nerfing the faction would essentially be balancing it for vet comms only, because you'd be basing the decision mostly on how well *they* do with the faction, rather than on how an average comm (or a more balanced mix of vet and new comms) would do with it.
P.S. Also, do we really have to nerf factions by removing the things that make them unique? TF gets miners you can rip to. It's the only faction that has that. It's pretty awesome. Why do we have to consider getting rid of this to nerf them? Bios have the fastest build time and the slowest research time. That's pretty unique. It's like the two things go together. Why do we have to consider removing this to nerf them? We're not talking about some totally game-breaking tech or a complete lack of balance here. We're talking about, basically, some factions being consistently more successful than some other factions by a fairly moderate degree. And we don't even know exactly *why* they're more successful. Maybe they're cheesy. Or maybe some factions just appeal to good comms more, and some appeal to less experienced comms more. So why discuss such drastic nerfs that remove some of the factions' uniqe abilities? If you must nerf a faction, can't you do it in a more subtle way, like moving a few points around on faction perks or manoeuvrability/hit points/whatever? These are not huge, giant imbalances, so a few subtle, small changes should really be enough.
Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:50 pm
by pkk
NightRychune wrote:QUOTE (NightRychune @ Apr 5 2010, 11:21 PM) Across every release of CC starting from cc_04, Bios has a 56% (rounded up) win rate, which is still higher than what it should be.
But with all these stats IC don't need a peak...
CC08 (March 06th - April 05th): 42%
CC08: 46%
CC04-CC08: 47%
Factionstats CC04-CC08:
Code: Select all
Total Wins Total Losses Total Win %
Belters 996 1037 48.99%
Bios 863 684 55.79%
Dreghklar 726 898 44.70%
Ga'Taraan 471 599 44.02%
Gigacorp 1089 900 54.75%
Iron Coalition 1464 1640 47.16%
Omicron 8 4 66.67%
Rixian 761 748 50.43%
Technoflux 766 634 54.71%
Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:51 pm
by NightRychune
lol. The bios build time perks weren't even added until the later releases of DN, 00.04.50 and onwards. They had something like a 39% win rate at the time and we had a conversation about what to do to perk them, and it was decided we could try giving their miners and cons fast build times to give them a stronger opener and leave them less susceptible to being rushed into the ground early on. We also perked their pod speed and rip time (40mps -> 50mps, 25s rip time -> 20s rip time) at the same time and pushed the package out the door.
Unfortunately the blanket fighter perks made this even worse in the case of Bios because their figs had already had scale reductions in the first place, and those changes just made them that much better. In a straight dogfight with an IC lt int vs. a bios basic fig, you're lucky if you can hit them with more than 1 mini at any given time. That's how small they are, and coupled with their inherent reduced mass and agility, they can be very difficult to kill, which makes pushing hard in Bios' face early for your average pug team very difficult.
Here we are two and a half years later with nothing done to any of those changes in CC throughout its existence, and the topic of "bios is overpowered" has been coming up again and again over the past six months.
Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:52 pm
by Jimen
I'd say that IC's numbers aren't necessarily accurate due to the fact that it's often portrayed as an "easy" faction for newbie comms...so people who don't even know how to manage regular miners choose IC because the ACS material told them to, and then flail helplessly because (in standard voob comm fashion) they don't take their economy into account while they expand, only with IC it's worse because not only are they setting up inefficient and slow mining, but their miners might rip to a forward tp and suicide at any time. Also, people who don't know any better sometimes pick a techpath that isn't exp.
I'm surprised Rix does that well, considering how often pug players tend to $#@! up the use of SRs. That's definitely gotta be the Rix hvy scouts meme at work - since Terran uses it all the damn time, a crapload of voobs have seen it in action, and it's become annoyingly popular.
The same argument doesn't hold for Bios, though, because I haven't seen anything to indicate that Bios is played overwhelmingly by vet comms. In my experience, it tends to be played by voob comms more often than vet comms - it's quite forgiving of $#@!ups as long as you don't lose your techbase, which makes "we lost all our miners, time to turtle and payday to victory" a viable strategy, and then of course there's the 1 in 3 chance that you'll get a home sup rock. Well, it's not like these Bios numbers weren't anything people didn't already know, but since it's impossible to fix more than one thing at a time, it's gonna be ignored no matter how hard you try to present it.
I'm not surprised at GT's poor showing, and in fact the only thing that I find interesting about it is the fact that this is the first time I've seen anyone acknowledge it in the CC forum, even though it's basically common knowledge. People whine about how X and Y need a buff, but never once for GT.
Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 10:04 pm
by Jimen
girlyboy wrote:QUOTE (girlyboy @ Apr 5 2010, 05:34 PM) No, I am merely saying that if a faction is preferred by vet comms, and less experienced coms don't like that faction very much, and the faction turns out to be very successful, this success may be because so many good comms prefer to play on that faction, and so few bad comms play with it, rather than because the faction itself is unbalanced. So then nerfing the faction would essentially be balancing it for vet comms only, because you'd be basing the decision mostly on how well *they* do with the faction, rather than on how an average comm (or a more balanced mix of vet and new comms) would do with it.
P.S. Also, do we really have to nerf factions by removing the things that make them unique? TF gets miners you can rip to. It's the only faction that has that. It's pretty awesome. Why do we have to consider getting rid of this to nerf them? Bios have the fastest build time and the slowest research time. That's pretty unique. It's like the two things go together. Why do we have to consider removing this to nerf them? We're not talking about some totally game-breaking tech or a complete lack of balance here. We're talking about, basically, some factions being consistently more successful than some other factions by a fairly moderate degree. And we don't even know exactly *why* they're more successful. Maybe they're cheesy. Or maybe some factions just appeal to good comms more, and some appeal to less experienced comms more. So why discuss such drastic nerfs that remove some of the factions' uniqe abilities? If you must nerf a faction, can't you do it in a more subtle way, like moving a few points around on faction perks or manoeuvrability/hit points/whatever? These are not huge, giant imbalances, so a few subtle, small changes should really be enough.
Um, you lost me. Explain why the hell we should be balancing factions for people who
don't know how to command, rather than people who
do? Next, are you going to suggest beefing up ints because newbies tend to be bad at flying them?
And the reason the things that make a faction unique need to be modified to bring them in balance is because
by definition, it's the unique aspects that unbalance them in the first place. If a faction is unbalanced, it's not because of the @#(! that it shares with
every single other faction, it's because of the buffs that are unique to that faction and that faction alone. Though nerfing the unique stuff is not always the
only way to bring a faction into balance (you can attempt to nerf their regular stuff to compensate for the overpoweredness of their special stuff), it's certainly the easiest way. Though for Bios, I would think the best way to do things would be to either nerf their paydays a bit or beef up their costs a bit, along with maybe a nerfing of their late-game defensive abilities so that they can't turtle a payday economy all damn game.
Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 10:06 pm
by HSharp
IC don't need a perk, bios do need a nerf, I don't think nerfing the opening build time would be good because tbh bios need that if they play against IC or Dreg who can rape them quickly, I would like Bios pod rip times to increase though to like 30 seconds, maybe even more so podding Bios players can actually affect the team's strength for a period of time instead of the 20 second (or less with GA)
Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 10:15 pm
by fufi
_SRM_Nuke wrote:QUOTE (_SRM_Nuke @ Apr 5 2010, 09:57 PM) Its like basing changes to Giga on how Fufi commands. Its an anomaly.
Actually you have to mainframe the time where
Jimmy + Giga = No win! was set present to the stats.
Well, no ...
... but as far we have a ranking system, and on that I see now this discussion starting, that ranking system needs to have impact on these statistic viewings about now in hearing.
And yes for all complaining about my english now, dont start your jibber-jabber,... some got it understood.
Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 10:17 pm
by notjarvis
Jimen wrote:QUOTE (Jimen @ Apr 5 2010, 11:04 PM) Um, you lost me. Explain why the hell we should be balancing factions for people who don't know how to command, rather than people who do? Next, are you going to suggest beefing up ints because newbies tend to be bad at flying them?
Nope - all Girly is saying is that "The statistics may be skewed as the better comm's may stick to certain factions". This will make those factions look better than they are in reality.
This seems a perfectly reasonable thing to say, as you should treat all stats with caution. And should think of
Why a certain stat is as it is - and it might not solely be a result of core balance
Edit:
Of course Girly said it in a Wall'o'text style as is his wont - but thats why we
him.