I've never met anyone more competitive than those who swear that they're so uncompetitive that they become competitive about it. I'd also consider them the most insufferable, and I've watched multiple communities fall apart trying to cater to those sorts. ...not pointing any fingers or anything.
The objective of the game is to win, the purpose of the game is to have fun. Competitive has achieved a status of its own in the wargaming circles and this makes both sides of the debate be right so I think we need some common ground. Every game that has two players facing each other to win the game is competitive by nature, the extend the players will go to achieve such victory is the level of competitiveness and what people usually refer to casual and competitive play. To be frank if you receive the 4th critical from a missile launcher in its worst range band you will be excused to call it a day or restart the game, on the other hand in a tournament play you are expected to fight it to the end and if possible win even against all odds. Its two different mindsets and two different expectations. I think we need to agree how we will use the terminology in the discussion here.
@psychoticstorm I am pretty sure everyone here perfectly understand what "competitive play" means in this context. The few ones pretending not too are just using this so-called ambiguity of the term "competitive" to laboriously try to justify how the balance of an entire game should be based on a largely minoritary way of playing, to satisfy a largely minoritary community of players.
I thought we were just gearing up to rehash the ages old argument between the elitist competitive players and the filthy casuals who dilute the purity of the game and which can bring salvation and prosperity. With side discussion as to which segment of the population base is more valuable to Corvus Belli. My popcorn is almost ready and I have extra nails for the persecuted and/or martyrdom minded. This isn't remotely unique and only interesting for the potential of spirited dialogue. Let me re-post from the other thread: Fanatic peat The game isn’t yours. It doesn’t belong to you. Stop browbeating devs to make it cater exclusively to you, alongside everyone else who wants something different. The game belongs to the devs and the studio. Let them make their vision. If it isn’t a financial success, well then it isn’t. If they want feedback fine, but stop demanding changes that ultimately ruin it for everyone. Why? Because a game cannot be all things to all people; any game that tries just destroys itself.
To borrow imagery from football, CB is a football association and the very active/intense forum users/‘top end’ players are the first division/top flight. Those players are concerned with their experience, while CB has to be concerned with and balance around the entire pyramid.
Not specific enough pal. Gimme a thread. Apparently, it is very obvious to find so be a dear and help a blind man finding it... :)
We're allowed to discuss prices, make off hand remarks such as "I thought Monofilament CCW were like 8 points? Nah, that was N2 pricing, they're closer to 3 points now which is still way too much*", but what you're asking for is essentially a guide to how to pick the unit pricing formula/guideline apart - that is not allowed. You're gonna have to do your own research on this. There's a few of us on the forums who have picked it apart and we've got a few slightly differing theories on pricing (is Frenzy a flat rate based off of unit type or is it a % discount? Is Terrain free or a fraction of a point that accounts for rounding errors?). * Yes, Monofilament CCW really were stupidly expensive during N2 which is why they still have a stigma about them. N4 really did them a dirty, though.
Suffice to say that since it is not allowed in the forum, places that discuss the formula in detail are outside of the forum, as I said a few I have found and read do not come close to have "figure it out".
It's easy. Take videogames as example. You can play casual matches with friends or entering ranked matches, and both are balanced in the same way with the same rules
And you have the same discussions, especially the players in the ranked matches expressing their frustration why the players who play casual matches do not see the urgency for XYZ thing needing immediate balance patch and the casual players been frustrated that their units become "duller" or "optimized" because they caused issues in the top tier games. And depending on who really pays the bills (regardless of who shouts the louder) catering to one side may prove to be financially ill advised.
I think this is a very good example. It all comes together (for me) with "how badly do I want to win". In a ranked (tournament) game the players tend to want to play. That´s for most participants the main purpose, to rank them as best as possible. Therefore they play the list / setup / building tree / Itembuild / weapons / whatever to achive the best possible outcome, mostly combined with some (intense) preparation Casual games are the place to try things out, playing units you either don´t know or you like although they are not optimized or a trying new strategies / itembuilds / unit combinations. The main purpose is not the winning, but winning in a fancy or unusual way, or just to try things. In a set up like this, balance would be desireable, but it´s not elementary per default. That´s what I think is called "off-meta". Most people trying this units are well aware their (balance-)weaknesses, some are picked just because of that, to challenge oneself. The mindset is a different one in each scenario.
Then you'd still have to contend with the following argument: No matter how casual or hardcore your game is, imbalances will manifest regardless of the level of play, and the hardcore competitive approach will discover them much more regularly and easily, so it's only logical to balance the game around it.
At what point does one end up spending more time and effort honing the game than creating it? A couple recent games have gone down that route, apparently ended up driving away enough of the "not hardcore" to fail completely.
Balance should be centered around the top players and tournaments, as they have the skill and game knowledge to abuse imbalance. Casual players can't tell if they lost because unit A is overpowered, the dice went bad, or because they committed a tactical blunder. Tournament players make less mistakes and enough tournament results over time will eliminate bad dice, so the tournament results will trend towards systemic imbalance when viewed on a faction level. What should be focused at the casual level is the removal of Negative Play Experiences; situations in which players become frustrated (or bored). These are usually due to either "gotcha!" moments (like Hidden Deployment/Parachutist) that a player may feel like they had no ability to anticipate or respond to, or moments that require a very specific answer (Guided Missile lists/Avatar) that can cause a player to feel that they had no chance to win even before the game starts. Casual players don't leave if a game isn't balanced at their level; they leave when they find the game unfun.
And, on top of looking to engage the greatest number of folks, CB also has to determine what they are looking for in a game. It has to be something that keeps them engaged and wanting to work on it as well. From appearances, a game that does well across a wide spectrum, from 'top end' play, to get togethers for friends, to casual pick up, to themed events. I mean, look at some of the tweaks they've made to ITS, etc. It seems like folks across the spectrum may just have to realize that CB isn't going to be catering to them specifically and exclusively, so an examination/evaluation of and resetting of expectations may be necessary.
Don't get me wrong, game's good enough balanced that people haven't yet started patching the game on their own, but I do know about at least one meta that has decided loss of lieutenant isn't fun. It is disheartening when I hear stories from metas after metas where certain tactics are taking over so hard that they start hemorrhaging players because of it, and then hear that CB's view on the situation is that the tactic and rule isn't causing problems. Whether you think a game should be balanced for the average player or the best player, I think we are approaching the point where we'll see player initiative to solving the worst offender soon.
Still waiting for that nice Internet place where one can find the magic point formula... :) PM me if you're too shy to share in public.
