Things we dislike in DoW (1 vs 1)

[ilia]

Note: This is of course from my SM perspective.


1. FC stun bug - basically random luck which costs you the game.

2. Orks's early rush. I tried building a turret, but the turret got wasted by BM, after they ganged on my FC (all the while taking fire from turret).

3. Orks's tracks. nuff said

4. Unpredictability of the Orks and the Eldar. You cant actually know if they are teching for prisms/tracks or massing more troops (scouting does not work, unless your Eldar). You take the wrong guess, your obviously screwed.

5.The fact that 5 seconds can cost you very often the game. And no this isnt a top fight between top ladder players: We're talking about everyday situations.

6. Tier 3 equavalents are unnecessary, and thus never reached, unless you are Eldar.


SOLUTIONS:

1. FC stun removed.

2. Ork's starting squad removed.

3. Ork track and Trukk reload time is 1.0 instead of 0.3

4. Every race has a starting ability which allows you to see a portion of the map for a short time every certain amount of time.

5. No known solution yet.


I know all of this wil create a lot of unbalances, but imo whichever are these imbalances, they are more preferable imho than the current randomness of DoW today.

[The Fell Hand]

Eh??? I'll agree that the orks either need to incur some sort of penalty for blindly rushing...but COMPLETELY removing the starting squad, with no sort of compensation would make their life hard. Less squads = easy dancing = pwnij game over. FC stun? Well, for now, it seems if you try to disengage right after being hit, you're stuck in range mode = dead. Either z (hotkey for melee), hit him and try to run again, or just fight it out and hope he's almost dead when your character dies. Point being, if it's an FC/FC or FC/CL duel, if you have to run, YOU lost by micro. The fact that you're forced to disengage doesn't change the fact that he managed to wittle your character down faster, and you had to turn tail. You know you'll lose anyways, so it's not the bug that lost you it in equal duels, it's your micro, sadly.

Trakks are how orks win. Nerf them? by a THIRD? why play ork anymore then? What are they possible gonna counter all your ranged firepower with? Once the game progresses, you just stack ranged infantry and orks swim in the mud.

Comsat? Eh...I dunno, might be cool but, ffs, recon IS an important part of the game. Get inf units to do it. Although having that ability for SM as part of the orbital might be cool. Wait, no that'd be cheating for deepstrike. Nevermind.

Tier 3 eh? well, play larger games, tier 3 comes up in those. Tier 3 in 1v1 is a special thing, and yeah whilst I agree that it'd be nice to have it come up more often, I don't see a viable solution at this stage of development in the game, aka it's done.

[ilia]

I was talking about removing the immidiate problems, not completely balancing the game.

Tracks is how ork's win. Interesting enough is that 2 tracks kill Heavy infantry faster than a full plasma squad. :/


Comsat... ok, so it would give SMs advantage in tier 3. Solution: Remove ability when Orbital relay is built.



Look, I dont want to get into flamefests here, or anything, but it IS annoying when 1 vs 1 depend who can make the biggest force the fastest, and fire first on the hero. That is if your fighting vs a normal SM/Chaos opponent. Vs ork's or eldar, its even more randomly dependant.

I, personally wont play 1 vs 1 anymore until these issues are fixed. Im tired of doing exactly the same thing countless times. Im not perfect. Sometimes I forget to hotkey my buildings, or to build the 2nd or 3rd marine squads in time. or to tech. or to continue building LPs. Im only human. I play at the evenings usually after a long and tiring day at school.

[The Fell Hand]

Remove the ability when orbital is complete? I SEE your point in a practical manner, but the whole point of dawn of war is that it's based on fluff and tabletop. At LEAST to the extent that "commander, we have completed the orbital relay. Now to be fair to our enemy, let us shut off our spy sateliite" . I just don't see how it would happen.

As for you general qualms in 1v1, I faced the same problem. we ALL do. I played hundreds of 1v1 and got mopped up when i tried to make games fun. 1v1's dependant on the number of units, basic micro, and luck is about as far as you'll get in ANY 1v1 situation in most RTS. Your lack of ability to not forget to build those squads and take advantage of cover and poor micro on your opponents part, should RIGHTLY lose you the game in 5 mins. We are all only human, including your opponents. Just because you're human is no indication you'll win. There are tons of players like you out there. And likewise tons of players that beat players akin to yourself. Because they learned to be responsible, learned consistency in their game and have simply been in more battle 101 situations than you have. When two such players meet up, it's called a good game. If you get screwed because you forgot to reinforce or just plain don't like early game, you're out of luck dude. It's frustrating, I hear you. I was there for a long time. But frankly you'll get over it, or you'll die and never become better. That's my honest bit.

[JADezimar]

4. Unpredictability of the Orks and the Eldar. You cant actually know if they are teching for prisms/tracks or massing more troops (scouting does not work, unless your Eldar). You take the wrong guess, your obviously screwed.

I find that completely and utterly frustrating too. How to find out what there doing without. Losing Valuable troops and resources. Then to no avail when you find out you lost becuase you turned the tables towards there favour.

2. Orks's early rush. I tried building a turret, but the turret got wasted by BM, after they ganged on my FC (all the while taking fire from turret).

This is also an insanely large problem, that most of DoW will agree upon. Even if you manage to stop this rush there capping points whilst you sat back dancing. There well ahead of you on the resource realm.

I.E. I started playing orks recently. And generally the only time I lose is when its to a better ork player. Or I played a team game and Demon quits after 2 minutes -_-.

[Mistress Crystal]

Only thing I have a problem with is FC stun bug, and I think traks need to have a bit longer build time. That's it.

The thing you gotta understand is that SM isn't made to be the dominant race. If you take out all the things that make you lose, you unbalance the others.

In my opinion, Sluggas oughtta be toned down -just- slightly... as it stands there is absolutely no difference between slugga boyz and shoota boyz... and then you have storm boyz for melee. I think sluggas power oughtta be toned down to make shoota boyz not being totally redundant... and then that'd help just slightly with the early rush...

You can't underpower other races just so your favorite race is overpowered. SM has so much leverage on Ork it's unbelievable. ;) Trakks and early early early game and super fast and high reinforce rate is what they got going for them.

Eldar I've never had a problem with whether they're rushing or teching. You just gotta keep tabs on them. Recon does work, and and also so does steady pressure, and even more brutally the scout rush.

Anyway... yes... FIX THE GODAMN FC STUN BUG

[Morpheus]

Solution for all problems in 1v1 - make all maps the size of terah in hw2. As you can see, most imbalances are in how fast one race can get an advantage over the enemy by knowing what they're dealing with. Slow down the rushes by increasing the maps, that way certain races don't exploit their advantages and also have time to get what they need to even out the game. Rushes are good, but not when they're so ridiculously unbalanced.

[ilia]

imho

http://www.tlsconline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4840&postcount=99

[Psy]

a lot of those are a shitload of buffs for sm/csm with eldar/ork nerfs. Good job.

Give it up on grav platforms as upgrades ,it will NOT happen because it is the only av eldar have. Prism "buff" I am absolutely against as it will completely overpower the artilery part.

Face 6 dreds and 9 marine squads with - lets have 6 reaper squads (12 pop) and 4 guardian squads with 2 BL each and tell me who wins... even if guardians cost 1 pop it is still wrong...

After playing a crapload with various setups - DoW design itself is hostile to eldar and favorable to ork with chaos/sm being in the mid. It all comes down to space. Eldar need a large map to trully exploit their strengths. I'll upload a very rough draft of a 1024 sized map - play eldar on it and you will shortly see what I mean. The advantage may infact be too large as I can hold off 3 insane cpu on such map literaly forever but it definitely shows you why eldar sux generally and shines in support role..they need room not buffs/nerfs.

[ilia]

Thx.

Psy, SMs in your example have both vehicles and infantry, while Eldar have only infantry. Of course sMs should win in that scenerio. Replace 2 of the Reapers with 2 Vipers, and add 2 more guards w/ bl, as well as a prism or two, and see the tide turn. You DO have to agree with me that the current bl spam in most games is unacceptible.


As for Eldar needing room, yes... but when there is not enough of room, they can always build FPs to clear some room for your troops at the expense of the enemy's, kiling a lot stuff in between....

Notice that my ver actually makes so that FPs barely do damage to infantry, but in return do significantly more damage to vehicles, and still can be a nice artillery. Note that they are still 3 vpop. FPs should be in a support role. Vipers/wraiths should be in the offensive/defensive one.

[Psy]

with friendly damage the only eldar units in area should be ranged so that takes out wraiths, vypers die to bolters of all things; don't even need missiles; but if missiles are there vypers will die in 1-2 shots. And my example is realistic as that is what SM would generally have and what i would have as a counter unless you meant to ask me to ask my opponent nicely to please build sm only or dreds only....

And no I dont agree as even with 20 bl and full complement of reapers I have lost to mass csm/sm/predator spam as well as mass tacs+dreds. Stick half dreds on reapers - rest fire at BL = gg eldar. With a single ww causing some BL to constantly re-set up bl spam is nothing more than imaginary problem.

You need room to even get to FP to "clear room", catch 22 - in most cases rushed eldar = dead eldar.

As is people want to:

Nerf spiders
Nerf prism further
Nerf Bl
Nerf dcannon
Nerf ability to build everywhere
Nerf boner teleport
Increase cost on a few other things things including SoulShrine

WTF - what does eldar have left? Actualy to re-iterare:

W H A T
T H E
F U C K
????

[ilia]

Psy, Prism cannot stay as it is now. Eldar have 10 production buildings for platforms on a normal high end game set. often even more. It also cant stay this way. Eldar can make anti vehicle units w/o sacrificing for the job their anti infantry units - which they can just make more of. So, let me see:

You cant get vehicles b/c the enemy always has these bl platforms - at least 2. Basically we are dealing with 1 full rocket squad, which cannon be broken, cannot be knocked down and has significantly shorter set up time. Result = best AV thing ever. Perhaps second to lascannon preds. Oh, and it's effectiveness doesnt drop when you damage it - unlike the rocket squad whoose members can get killed individually.

Next: Reapers. Basically Heavy bolters which slaughter heavy infantry. Sure, you can deal with 1 or 2 squads, but can you deal with 5? Youl need Assault marines to do so. Oh, I forgot. You cant really use assualt marines much b/c of entangle. Heavy bolters? forget it dude. Snipers? Waprs come. Scouts dead. Warps go. so...certainly I could beat a decent Eldar player, but from my 2 experiences w/ Eldar, I felt much more secured when I played em, than when I played with SMs/chaos. And I dont play n00bs.

[Morpheus]

I never had that much of a problem with Eldar in 1v1. Only very quick WS squad followed by reapers can counter SM, otherwhise Eldar will loose. The problem I had with Eldar is in team games, where I can't shoot at eldar due to their long firing range from behind another race. That's where the eldar become very difficult to deal with.

[Psy]

cannot be knocked down - falacy - missiles/artilery cause it to resetup
doesnt drop when you damage it - unlike the rocket squad whoose members can get killed individually - you mean like me losing bl and thus firepower while dread pounds full force until it dies?

Eldar are the weakest vs SM illia and please your arguments all consist of eldar countering your every single move at every turn which very rarely happens.

And mass bl also means NO vehicles or only few of them - so instead of crying nerf get a few plasma squads and watch em pop. I dont see missile squads costing you your dreds..... Two plasma squads will kill10-12 bl EASY. You wanna save pop use scouts, even their snipers kill BL which can not heal.

And morph got it bang on. In support role eldar is insanely efficient. In assault role ... rather weak.

As for scouts check out the replay I just posted.

[The Fell Hand]

Hmm...I've been playing eldar quite a lot recently...I'm quite sure that artillery splash forces BLs to redeploy, but no amount of missile "bouncing" causes any delay in BLs fire cycle. I can't be sure though, I can't remember the last time an SM player wasted 200+ 60/15 x4 on a single 140/105 plat. The single digit damage per ml simply means the waste of a large chunk of the SM force. I agree that two plasma squads will total a large group of BLs rather easily, but I think newer SM players problems lie in successfully distracting the rest of the eldar force (usually a standing guard of as many reapers as possible, with a few guards or spiders), to ever get two squads of SM near enough to BLs. BL range is quite impressive, with spotting of course. Point being, even though plats are slow, your attack needs to be well coordinated, or you'll die trying to kill the plats, and whatever remains will easily overpower you. This is especially true late game when webways are in large numbers. I certainly won't cry nerf on plats, but I won't pretend that a tooled up late game eldar force is easy to deal with, at least for me and most SM players as I see it. And not that a _nicely_ balanced force of any other race is any easier to deal with. It's simply more difficult to strike those balances. Mass reap/plat + misc support isn't that hard to manage/gather. Acquiring a force that will win decisively against such a simple force can be rather challenging, depending on the map of course.

And yeah morph has it in but a few words. Eldar are painfully weak in spearheading and early close quarter games when properly dealt with, but stick happy eldar tech behind something like an SM tac spam, and your opponent will be in for a world of hurt and frustration.

[MVB]

Psy, nobody wants to do all of those things together.

I could easily say

So far, people want to:

Nerf Scouts
Nerf Assault Marines
Nerf Sniper rifles
Nerf Dreadnoughts
Nerf Predator lascannons
Nerf orbital bombardment


OMG WHAT DOES SPACE MARINE HAVE LEFT

WHAT
THE
FUCK

point is, while certain people want one or a couple of those, just like they want one or a couple of the nerfs you mentioned for eldar, no sane human being wants ALL of those

[Psy]

I know mvb but those are things they whine about and I wont be suprised if some are actualy done.

And yess full reaper+bl force is extremely painful to dispose of but not impossible. And fell i think I have played quite a few eldar games myself - with a missile hit Bl redeploys. Why is it good to have misiles anyway? Short work of buildings, webways, turrets and if massed bl but not full cap - an odd prism here and there. I would hardly call that a waste.

And just as a BTW logic - why are you NOT getting 2-3 plasma and 2-3 missiles if you have vehicles. Your ONLY eldar threat at that point are the brightlances. Dispose of them and your vehicles will dispose of eldar infantry for you. Its a D O H ! really....

Unlike SM weapons, eldar can only damage vehicles noticeably with bl and not anything else. Whereas I am still in awe of plasma scouts owning kans.....

[Morpheus]

Me thinks 30 WS or even rangers can do the job the same as those scouts.

Instead of nerfing/buffing we should just increase the map size = poblem solved. Sure teched up eldar are very good, but tier 3 SM/Chaos/Ork are not that bad either.

[eXoRciSt]

Psy, nobody wants to do all of those things together.

I could easily say

So far, people want to:

Nerf Scouts
Nerf Assault Marines
Nerf Sniper rifles
Nerf Dreadnoughts
Nerf Predator lascannons
Nerf orbital bombardment


OMG WHAT DOES SPACE MARINE HAVE LEFT

WHAT
THE
FUCK

point is, while certain people want one or a couple of those, just like they want one or a couple of the nerfs you mentioned for eldar, no sane human being wants ALL of those


They shoudlnt nerf any of those things, if anything, add or improve soemthing, becuase eldar is just plain kicking ass.

I think Chaos is ok, ork needs to balanced more, and some lowered prices.

Im 32-11 playing as eldar latley, its very easy to win with them.

[The Dark Messenger]

Eldar need balancing vs. Orks, though. As it is, WS OMGWTFBBQPWN all ork infantry except Heros and Nobz, and you can get WS cheaply, early, and bring them into firing range without a moment's warning.

[Psy]

Demon your opinion hardly matters. And no noe of those things needs nerfing SM wise EXCEPT scouts. they are just plain worng. Check out the replay I posted if you don't think something is wrong there you need brain examined.

yes they weren't every good and yes one dropped and the other quit but traks+cans? Nobz + warboss? Come on. That is just plain insane, brought to you courtesy of sm all purpose do it all weapons and scout pop 1.

[eXoRciSt]

I said nothing needed to be nerfed

[Spulm]

NERF SPACE MARINES
NERF ELDAR
NERF ORKS
NERF CHAOS

OMG WHAT DOES DAWN OF WAR HAVE LEFT

WHAT
THE
FUCK

Sorry, I hate all the blathering bout nerfing everything.

M.

[Xcellsi0r]

I'll be getting DoW in 2 weeks I think. I'm thinking that I'd like to learn about the lingo, First of all, WTF is nerf???? Tell me a few other things to guys. OH one more thing, isn't unpredictability a good thing!!!! Like, isn't that a challenge, if you knew what they were doing then it would be pretty boring, HW2 for example would be as boring as watching paint dry. If you knew what they were doing all the time?!?!

[The Fell Hand]

Nerf isn't specific to DoW (Ha, with all the bitching, may as well be).

Nerf refers to the brand. You know, nerf guns, nerf balls? they're all squishy and...uhm, not real weapons (the guns and arrows I mean). So when someone uses it under the context of game balancing, "nerf" means to soften, or tone something down. E.g. "Nerf x unit's range" would mean reducing their range.

The opposite of nerf is buff. yeah...

[MVB]

DoW can be fun, and we'll be getting mroe organized in it when my semester is done, but it has a lot of downsides right now that need fixing.

[laserflip]

you guys crack me up! people say that eldar>>>orks...i'll take you up on that bet. i say BOOST spiders, AND reapers, AND brightlances. eldar has no worthwhile anti vehicle, and if you say brightlance, i suggest you take a break from n00bybashing 4v4 games and play some 1v1s vs orks. warp spiders are worthless vs orks, i mean think about it. 240 for a squad of 4, plus the power, there is NO WAY you are going to match the ammount of squads the ork has. and brightlances cost damn near the same as a wartrakk! and are nowhere near as effective! sure, they cost less cap, but what the hell good does that do you? now, as you all know, scout marines DO tear up orks, and THOSE are the units you should be crying to nerf. they take up 1 cap, allowing you to OUTSQUAD the orks, and beat them. i think SM>ork. Ork, however, wtfbwns chaos, due to cultists costing 2 cap. WC_Sleign has a great chaos v ork game, and mine is decent at best...orks can 00bermass infantry and beat chaos without EVER going trakks, due to the ability to equip any infy squad short of stormboyz with rokkits, at cheap cost. the cap points twice as fast, and have big mek harass. chaos lacks mobility. SM v Eldar seems pretty evenly matched, but it all comes down to intelligence. if i am space marines and am expecting a tactical marine strat, i can beat you without thought. if i know you are going to scout rush, i could go early spiders and kill scouts, while i harass you; a bit trickier, but can be done. on the other note, if i am space marines, and know you will be using howling banshees, i can easily kill you with ASM+snipers; i would have adequate time. it all comes down to rock-paper-scissors, and a LOT of you seem to have a big problem with that. your honestly cant expect 4 races to be perfectly balanced, can you? most of your complaints are simply counters- if they wanted a game with no counters, they would have taken out vehicles , eldar, orks, and any CC units, and just made the game a tactical marine spam SM vs chaos. that would be fucking boring.

p.s. reapers are fucking useless 1v1!

[MVB]

You're insane if you think SM > Ork. Don't ruin my rising opinion of you as a DoW gamer by making statements like that which are ridiculous, and clearly based on not very many sm vs ork games.

[ilia]

I think lassie is on crack. Seriously.

[Psy]

After playing with a bit of other than relics high school math and actually looking closely at the balance based on stats.

1.0 - represents fair game 50/50 split.

Chance of player losing a game based on that players race regardless of enemy race or number of races/players present:

SM. 0.88
Chaos 1.15
Eldar 1.21
Ork 1.41

ironically it is also true that ork own sm. 0.88 to 1.15 or 1.21 to 1.41 statisticaly is a HUGE diference. I have taken player distribution into account as well as the fact SM won 47% of ALL games with 53% distributed relatively evenly among the other 3. Judge from there.

This game is not even close to balanced.

PS balance is achieved in 0.98 to 1.02 range with races alternating those 4 spots daily....

[MVB]

Psy, in 1.0 all races owned marines. A good chaos player owns a marine today, a good ork player owns a marine, and now eldar don't own marines and are weaker vs. them b/c they can't simply rush concealed seers out at them.

So I don't know where the hell you get those crazy numbers from.

[2biT]

Things i dislike in 1v1.

Everyone above me in the ladder.

[Psy]

MVB those are not "crazy numbers" those are statistics 101 and take into account win vs loss weighted relative to total games played of all races 1v1 to 4v4 as well as relative to the race distribution weights - ie more sm players ~50% and rest splitting relatively evenly the other "half" which affects the weight of win/loss probability as well.

It is elementary data analysis and it is extremely fair. There are a few exceptions - such as most good ork players play 1v1 and competitively whereas in team games ork generally SUCK. etc etc

Each race has been treated fairly as it was a number to begin with and those are the results no matter which weighted frequencies/probabilities you look at at.

Our respective biases do not change shit. Each race should be within .03 points of eachother in a balanced game the fact they are not should make people think. And SM dominate the wins. 50% of 100 is easier to achieve than 50% of 10000 except in a 100% balanced game. Elementary.

If you take weights of probabilities based on actual results rather than 1 in 4 which is wrong, you get that overall - SM dominates all. I am not suprised and the point is that this game is HORRIBLE balance wise - it could have just as easily been eldar at the top.

[Morpheus]

Psy, this data doesn't say that much about balance. To get the better numbers, separate the games into 1v1, 2v2, and 3v3/4v4 categories, then calculate the winning ratios. You can't judge the overall numbers due to the fact that majority of the random team games are won not by a better race, but by a better teamwork, and race has nothing to do with it whatsoever. Also, take into consideration the amount of times given race has been used; the more times race is used, the better people get used to playing it.

The fact that SM comes out to be a better race, IMO, is there because so many people play it regularly, then just try out other races and lose with them. SM will always be better, vast majority of people start with them and win with them for a while, before switching to something else.

And MVB, Psy was not talking about DoW 1.0, he was saying that 1.0 represents 50/50 winning ratio for a given race. Lower number, like 0.88, corresponds to better than 50/50 winning split.

[MVB]

Psy, the point is your numbers are not fair, because they assume all games played. By not analyzing only competitive games between even-skilled players, you cannot get any kind of accurate report on balance. The fact that I have, for instance, hundreds of wins and less than 10 losses on my MVB account does not mean that my space marines are imbalanced. If every one of my games had been against skilled ork players in 1v1, I might have far less than 50% wins.

[Erik_Firewolf]

Relic should have put in Fire Dragons. And plats should be guardian squad upgrades.

And piss off the FS. Phoenix Lords are much cooler.

[Psy]

MVB my numbers are extremely fair as:

1. Each game is treated as any race vs any other race
2. Noob vs skilled is and in each game can be equally true on both sides of the equations and therefore mathematicaly sound and correct.

Original version had sm at .4 chance to lose but I realised I did not take into account that there are more sm players. So I corrected it.


It is fair - it is based off of the actual results of all games and reflects DoW globaly which include games with Sc bug of all things - again numbers are correct it is what has happened so far you just refuse to admit it.

And BTW your account doesn't matter - neither does your race as each game is simply a roll of dice and resulting distribution is recorded and presented.

I can say the same no-skill for my SM as those games are also recorded. it simply is irelevant to look at it that way.

Numbers are weighted to account for fact that there are LESS ork players than any other btw and in essence reflect who played vs whom (race-wise) as well which serves to reduce SM dominance. In my analysis Sm actually start off with a largest probability to lose but come out as having the smallest - based off of outcomes recorded. Again stats 101.

This is the big picture, and the overall distribution - lone peaks and valeys do not a graph make - final distribution does - whether you believe it or not.

[MVB]

Look, psy, you're completely missing the point -- entirely.

Only when comparing equal-skilled players can you properly assess imbalance, and you fail to do this in the current situation.

If, for example, I play 200 games against a total of 100 eldar players and 100 easy computers, and win every single game. Each eldar player is 0-1, and is obviously a total n00b, and I'm 200-0 as marines, yet I'm a veteran player, so it wasn't exactly hard.

If you then backed off and looked at those overall stats and took off names, you'd have 200 games played as space marines, and 100 games played as eldar. The marines would have a 100% win percentage and the eldar a 0%.

You're taking overall stats from all players and games, and it just isn't relevant. If it "is" the big picture, the big picture is worthless.

Find out what happens when the top ladder space marine players faces the top ladder ork player. Do the same for all match-ups. That is how you determine balance. You are taking players who KNOW how to use all units and all exploits and all imbalances in their favor, and who also have mastered the game, and you are facing them off. The player with an imbalanced race comes out on top. Chaos and orks almost ALWAYS beat marines in this circumstance, because if you know all situations and all instances, Chaos and orks have some major imbalances that help them omgwtfpwn the poor marines, who have imbalance AGAINST them.

Your stats are not inaccurate, and I didn't claim they were, I don't believe. They ARE irrelevant, and relevancy is what counts.

[Psy]

Sigh, you know we always have opinions and such, but we don't always have the knowledge to back it up. In this case as rusty as it is - I do.

Skill doesn't matter as it is a variable of equal weight on BOTH sides of the equations. Mathematicaly skill cancels out in reality it has the effect of averaging itself out across ALL players in ALL games.

Team vs 1v1 doesn't matter as again it is the same weight on all sides of the equations. Neither does US vs them as at any given time there are more randoms team games than ours, the fact we play together shouldn't change that reality.

In my analysys US vs them, or even which person vs which person plays does not cary that much importance, neither does 1v1 vs team, they are all averaged out across the results, final OUTCOMES do matter. And the outcome is not to your liking.

This game needs to be belanced for team play as well because any 1v1 match up ignores the other two races.

This is simple probabilities and outcomes weighted across numbers of games played by each race against the total number. And then the final result is presented. This is the race distribution as it stands.

If all of them were within .03 points of eachother we would have a nice bell shaped curve and a balanced game. As it stands that curve right now has a hump in SM spot. Ignore it if you will. This is not a call to nerf sm or buff ork but it does present fact.

I haven't given any why's (which is what you are trying to do) - simply what is's.

Morph all of those are taken into account as sm start off with a smalles probability of loss due to precisely the experience factor. Based on data off of the web page you can determine weights of race vs race plays simply based on numbers of plays from each. Once you calculate probabilities look at the actual outcomes and you will arrive at the same distribution as i have.

Nuff said - no offense but with an immediate jump to disprove even tho a simple fact of what numbers show is presented - even from expereienced players who happen to also be inteligent - this game will never be balanced - or rather not balanced in time to prevent its death.

[MVB]

Skill does matter, psy, because it is not evenly distributed. If 200 n00bs play games as Eldar and lose 5 each, and ONE space marine skilled player plays 1,000 games against ONLY n00bs and wins each one, you have a wide sway there with just 51 players of 1,000 wins for space marines and 1,000 losses for eldar that are NONE indicative of the actual matter of things.

Because VERY skilled players play the vast majority of total online games, and because you do not know how many of those very skilled players are playing each race, nor how many total n00bs are playing each race, your stats do not matter ... they don't cancel each other out, and can't.

[Psy]

You assume that's the case - i assume nothing past the fact all races start as equal - the fact they don't end up as such is something else entirely.

You ignore noob vs noob if you will - I don't. And in a balanced game regardless of who plays it as I said the result would be diff. It is not that way, the game is not balanced, the results show what the current global state of dow is. I am sorry if it seems like an attack on precious Sm it is not meant to be.

And I am also tired of that elitist 1v1 skilled games only. Balance is balance - regardless of who plays it or what race and it IS reflected in the stats.

I was actually thinking eldar will come on top due to the fact SC bugged games are included and this is not the case - that suprised me a bit but it encouraged me in area of succesfuly eliminating my biases.

Think of it what you will, its a mute point anyway as this game is dead, some people just don't know it yet.

[MVB]

Psy, let's take as an example the idea that cultist grenade launchers are imbalanced.

The average n00b probably doesn't even focus on cultists, because they are so fragile, and is hardly likely to think about grenade launchers, much less know how to use them appropriately. Therefore, if we are to judge the potential imbalance of grenade launchers, anybody not knowing how to properly exploit an imbalance must be stricken from the equation.

You cannot make any assumptions or conclusions based on incomplete or nebulous data.

That being said, I completely agree that the game is horribly imbalanced in a large number of ways. I simply disagree as to what the imbalances are. I enjoy DoW, and haven't "Given up" on it, but at the moment World of Warcraft is insanely good, and is easily the best game I have played all year, barring none, and including Homeworld 2. Until they work out the myriad problems in DoW with more patches, I will continue to play WoW primarily, and DoW ONLY a little.

[Psy]

MVB you keep insisting as to why - I simply shown what the overall state of dow is. I am sorry if your Sm seem to dominate. And it is not due to number of games as Sm would have twice the advantage of chaos over eldar due to player distribution - they don't - disagreement with roughly half people playing Sm and a relatively even .2 point difference between races not following player distribution proportions are a tell-tale that work has been done on the game but balance is yet to be achieved.

The only assumptions are the ones you make - including the assumption i don't know what I am doing. While at it lets strike scouts and orbital out, and all bugged sc games, and all trak games, and all posessed rushes until people learned to dance, and all dreds until people got better at getting bl out, and all jumping prism games, and all bugged morale-accuracy chaos games etcetcetc....

See the pattern?

Each race had/has it's OP and UP aspect and thus weighs equally on the global stats and thus the whole global picture. And therefore balances itself out in the final point distribution.

And btw the data is complete - which was your original problem - every single game. Pick up coles stats - this is is rather basic and its in there. And I violate none of the statistical no-no's except ignoring the disconnect/lossess.

I took a look at wow - wont be getting it...

[MVB]

Your loss.

[Morpheus]

I still woudln't trust statistics to judge the game balance based on all of the online games played. There are way too many factors to account for. I still think that you proved that SM are less likely to lose because more people play it, even though it gets accounted for. You need a completely controlled lab setup to calculate the accurate data, like choosing a group of people that have the same gaming hours and same overall gaming experience.
Mathematicaly thinking, the larger the group, the better your average should be - results average out over a larger amount of data. When it comes to online games, however, I think that average would be useless, unless you know at least a ball park figure of skill distribution. Statistics would assume that skill is evenly distributed among all the races and all the games played.
In the end, I think that your data did prove SM to be imbalanced on the average. But what actually affects it is questionable. Wait two-three weeks and recalculate the data. You'll need to track all the decimal places you can, so that you can see the trend where the numbers are shifting. As people get more experienced and change races, the data should change, unless, of course, everyone will still stick to good ol' SM - then we'll just get a patch to remove the SM and add something else in.

[Erik_Firewolf]

Quarreling lovers.

You two have had sex, haven't you?

[MVB]

Many times.

We've also had sex with you, but we drugged you first.

You weren't a tight enough catcher for us. Felt used. I think that's why we haven't come back for seconds.

[The Fell Hand]

*sighs* Spam. I mean. What was this thread about again? rofl. I agree with morph. Keep track for awhile psy, I'm interested to see where it goes. I think it might balance out a bit more after awhile and people get out of the "good 'ol sm" mindframe. Just an innocent guess though.

[MVB]

I think I would tend to agree that sm is overbalanced overall, for the primary reason that is the easiest race to learn, and so the most succesful n00bs are all SM players. The curve changes drastically when you start talking about experts only.

[laserflip]

From a strategic standpoint, psy is right...SM are better than ork...due to scouts ridiculous power vs light infantry. they tear up orks early on en masse if you rush them. From a statistical standpoint, though, MVB is right. psy's logic is flawed in that you cant just look at all the games that n00bs play trying to learn orks and lose to anoyher n00b who is SM simply bc SM is a simpler, easier race to play. N00bs cant play orks, and there are 10x as many noobs as skilled at least. narrow that down to people who are 1500+ 1v1 rating only, and it will tell a different story entirely. the good ork players do pwn the good space marine players...but thats because the "good" sm players only scout harass vs orks, not full on uberspam scout rush ;)

[Mistress Crystal]

MAybe let's take a look at things outside of a 1vs1 context?

Let's seee... races seem to be stacked against specific races. Eldar > Ork, Ork > SM , while Chaos and SM has the possibility to be anti-everything. Perhaps this was done to enhance team play.

In 1vs1 this would make you suffer horribly based on your race, however, in team games it'd seem to balance out to me. Combine anything with an SM(anti-everything) in a 2vs2 and you got a damn force right there. Even SM/Chaos as a combo is fuckin' deadly. You got bonus melee + major firepower. Anything + Eldar = awesome.

Not saying that it's this way, just offering something to think about it.

As it stands everyone wants everything nerfed. Play as a team and fight cheese with cheese, it works. :)

[ilia]

Yes but this is not balance. This is rock-paper-scissors.

[Mistress Crystal]

It's a different way of balancing. Again, I'm not saying that's how it is, so don't start a new rant. It's just something to think about.

[ilia]

I already thought about it.
All races MUST have equal chances of winning at any stage of the game using EVERY unit available to them Vs EVERY race. THIS, is balance. Even the wimpy Generals had this. Example in DoW: Do you use HF Dreads Vs marines? No? ok. Do you use em Vs Orks? Yes. This is not balance. If this was balance, the HF Dread would be useful Vs Marines too. There are literally dozens of such examples. You must adapt your tactics to counter the tactics of your enemy, not your units to an extent that a certain unit is useless vs a certain race.

[Psy]

In your example balance is achieved through the fact BOTH of those are available at the same stage of the game. Your choice determines the outcome.

That said I agree partly.


If all races regardless of unit type have potentially = armor piercing/damage inflicting potential whether in numbers, resiliancy, or efficiency available at SAME cost in req/power/time then balance is achieved. Unit choices however, upgrade choices, and tactics should determine the outcome. As is that is NOT the case.

Playing middle earth now, so far the only thing dow has over it is graphics/camera. It (dow) is owned in almost every other area - yes including the interface. BFME is clean ala HW1, not cluttered with a third of my screen covered in buttons. And this game too was on a deadline to coincide with rotk special edition release as well as holidays.


Relic has a LOT to learn as a developer too bad their ego's stand in the way.

[Erik_Firewolf]

DoW wins because its 40K.

Too bad the marines are shitty codex marines (boring as fuck, and weak).

[Psy]

sm weak, rofl, lmfao....oh boy

can't


stop




laughing......

[Weavern]

Psy erik is right compared to the codex marines in DOW are horribly weak. Likewise almost all the DOW conversions pale in comparison to their DOW counterparts such as how dreads go down to a few missile squads and are in armies with numbers greater then 5 :p

[Psy]

It has been established that DoW:

is
nothing
like
TT

.
And in DoW SM dominate.


:P

[Erik_Firewolf]

Codex marines, aka vanilla marines, lack the flavour of the big four. Perhaps you're right, with the new C:SM they're not too bad. But, I have a feeling that's not what you're referring to.

I would so dearly like to see the big four in DoW. But something like the wolves would require some heavy reworking of how marines work.

And, in the TT marines are weak too. Moreso than their DoW representation. I think Inquisitor is a better example of accurate fluff -> game. Quick example:
Veteran Imperial Guard (regular human soldier): Strength 60, Toughness 60, Initiative (reaction time) 55.
Regular Space Marine (non-veteran): Strength 200, Toughness 150, Initiative 85 + lots of armour.
In the TT:
IG: S = 3, T = 3, I = 3.
SM: S = 4, T = 4, I = 4.

I can't imagine what the stats of my avatar would be, in the TT he's S = 5, T = 4, I = 5.

[The Fell Hand]

A fluff based system is for another game. DoW ain't being remade into a "one marine kills 20 orks" thang any time soon. Or by soon I should mean ever. Nevar. 20 years from now when another company, or heaven forbid ;) relic should get the gall to give this all another go, I'm sure our computers will be able to handle 2000 orks on screen bathing in their own blood as 5 terminators kill them all. Until then, the representation they DID manage to get across whilst maintaining some sweet visual styles, I find to be pretty convincing if your'e willing to ENJOY DoW for once and not nitpick...some of you -_-...

[MVB]

5 termies w/ assault cannons killing 2000 orks sounds hot

Let's make our own game.

[The Fell Hand]

rofl mvb. You don't use caffeine to study, by any chance?