Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Balance Subforum Request

50 posts, 1636 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 3 (50 records)
sort
I would like to request that a new SubForum be added, Balance Discussion.

This Subforum would come with several rules, which are kept visible in a sticky at the top.

Firstly, there would be a minimal elo of 1600 needed to post (lower elo players are considered to have insufficent understanding of game mechanics to usefully discuss them).

Secondly, there would be a much greater intolerance for offtopic, tangenting and neoning. Moderators are considered to have a free hand in this subforum and can delete posts upon their discresion.

thirdly, the number of negative karma needed to hide a post would be much lower (-3).

This forum would exist for serious discussion of game balance that could be broken down into sub-topics for individual units much the way that the strategy section is, viewable by all but read-only unless you meet the elo criteria. The idea is to encourage useful, structured dicussion and reduce the number of headless chickens that rush into balance discussions.
+10 / -1


10 years ago
I suppose only the 1600+ elo players would be able to give +1/-1 votes as well?
+1 / -1

10 years ago
I said this a while ago and not only because general is at least half balance discussion. I don't think an elo requirement is strictly necessary. Most of the trolls and neonstormers are high elo.
+6 / -0
Also hiding posts with too many negative votes doesn't work if you simply want to disagree by -1ing.

Otherwise it sounds like a good idea. Could you write a stickied post and some format to how the opening posts should look like, what should be addressed?

For example: what i miss in almost every balance discussion here is some context to the claims of "X is OP/UP" Think of the specific moment in the game, the type of map (or even better a specific map), what happened before and what happens after the situation you are discussing etc etc
+2 / -0

10 years ago
The current balance discussions are pretty good if you ignore the chaff. The only problem is people refuse to post replays. Replays give the context of the users best use case scenarios so we can all get on the same page.

It would just be nice to have a forum dedicated to this so there is not a new 'banshee op' thread every month with none of the context of the last.
+0 / -0
quote:
I said this a while ago and not only because general is at least half balance discussion. I don't think an elo requirement is strictly necessary.


I think the elo restriction is a good idea. Every singular post that is tangenting or neon or innaccurate or just plain stupid risks being the subject of someones reply and derailing the thread.

quote:
The current balance discussions are pretty good if you ignore the chaff.


I dont see why we should have to ignore the chaff. Better to just prevent the chaff from posting and/or moderate/delete their posts until they learn to contribute instead of derail.

quote:
Also hiding posts with too many negative votes doesn't work if you simply want to disagree by -1ing.


I would make it a net negative -3 to make invisible, so a single +1 on the post would make it visible again until it reached -4. The purpose of invisible is to remove posts from the canon argument above so people dont reply to them without realising that the content should be ignored.

quote:
Most of the trolls and neonstormers are high elo.


I would hope forum mods could do us a solid and delete any walls of neon from the usual suspects, but short of that for repeat offenders it would be nice to have a way of temp banning them from posting in the balance subforum.

quote:
Could you write a stickied post and some format to how the opening posts should look like, what should be addressed?


Absolutely.
+0 / -1
10 years ago
quote:
forum mods could do us a solid and delete any walls of neon

I would like a [WallOfText][/WallOfText] tag so people will have to click a button to read it. I don't often neonstorm but sometimes I write walls of text that make a thread really long so a tag like this could make threads less congested.
+3 / -0
Wasn't there some sort of spoiler tag available already?

I remember the replays had a spoiler mechanism at some point. Is that code transferable to the rest of the forums?
+0 / -0


10 years ago
There was a default-on hiding of battle results, so you'd have to click on it to see who won. Licho disliked it, so it was reverted.
+0 / -0

10 years ago
I agree with this immensely.
Thread derailment is over 9000 lately, shifting from a clear purpose to arguing over some completly unrelated subject

kinda infuriating when you have substantial gripes about a unit or mechanic and would like them addressed/discussed
+4 / -0


10 years ago
If this is implemented, I will work EXTRA HARD to raise my Elo enough to qualify, just so that I can make disruptive and pointless comments within the threads of this sacred temple.
+4 / -0
A balance forum sounds like a good idea, but a big -1 to an elo limit. There might be correlation where higher elo players are generally more knowledgeable about the game, but that does not mean that players with less elo do not have valuable input. (And it especially does not mean that high elo players will never derail threads on their own)
+4 / -0

10 years ago
I'm in two minds of about the ELO limitation admittedly, but the reduced necessary -1's to hide posts or the baleetion of completely irrelevant posts I'm for

Nothings more annoying then seeing a constructive thread about, say, a strider being balanced to see it "shit posted" into an argument about which factory is more OP which can last dozens of posts long, far past the point of no return
+1 / -0
Since I'm obviously the low-ELO Neonstorming player in question, I'll chime in here:

I'm not actually sure what conversation USrank[GBC]1v0ry_k1ng expects to be having in a balance thread.

Let's be clear - 90% of the time when expert players complain that a unit is OP or UP, *hardly anybody disagrees with them*.

I mean, balance threads usually go like this:

"So, unit X is UP, isn't it"

"Yup"

"Okay, what do we do about it?"

*massive chaos begins here*.

And that usually comes from a matter of ideology - USrank[GBC]1v0ry_k1ng prefers minimalist stat++/stat-- changes. Discussing larger issues that may contribute to Unit X's problems causes threadjacks because the thread is now about the larger issue, so I see the frustration.

But if you maintain a laser-like focus at single-unit problems, you ignore larger issues in the game. I mean, in his big UP-unit-list-post, he included almost every slow or disarm unit in the game... but then raged when I suggested a blanket-buff on the disarm/slow powers themselves by combining them. Is that the right answer? Idunno. Maybe not. But is it off-topic/tangential? I don't think so.
+3 / -0
quote:
If this is implemented, I will work EXTRA HARD to raise my Elo enough to qualify, just so that I can be disruptive


If this effort to improve applies to every low elo player than the elo floor has already justified itself!

quote:
There might be correlation where higher elo players are generally more knowledgeable about the game, but that does not mean that players with less elo do not have valuable input.


I completely disagree, and will explain why using statements.

I generally play ZK pretty well.

I generally require around 25 commands a minute.

25 commands a minute is extremely undemanding for the RTS genre.

25 commands a minute allows a fair degree of thinking, and places the emphasis on making the right decisions rather than skill or muscle memory (after a certain amount required to master the interface).

winning being more dependent on decision that muscle memory and reflex implies a strong correlation between knowing how to win and winning.

Knowing how to win primarily involves making the right units and using them correctly.

If you do the above, you will be fairly high elo.

If you do not do the above, you have a retardation either physically manipulating the controls, OR, you do not understand the game sufficently to make, use and control the correct units.

I reached 1700 elo and remained stable at this point 12 months ago doing nothing but going spiders and spamming cudgels 95% of games. I used these aggressively, but that was all I did, as players from that period can attest. I did not understand the game balance or units very well.

1700 elo represents at best a medicore understanding of the game.

Having established that the level of understanding needed for 1600+ is low and that the skill required to progress up to higher levels is also very low, in most cases the only true barrier to ability is understanding. A player with sub 1600 elo does not understand enough about how the game works to be commenting on intimate game balance at the same level as a player who does understand.

Is there a flaw in my reasoning somewhere?
+0 / -0

10 years ago
Generally speaking, if 1700 elo is mediocre understanding than we are all screwed as average elo is far beneath that. I understand that high-elo players have the best qualification to make points on balance, but I also think that low-elo players should at least have a voice in balance. Some lower-elo players actually have a grasp on counter mechanics, they just have trouble with other parts of the game. In this case, although I don't think a low-elo opinion is instantly good, more feedback from the "average" player could very well be good for balance. Otherwise I completely agree with the original post.
+0 / -0
quote:
And that usually comes from a matter of ideology - GBrank[GBC]1v0ry_k1ng prefers minimalist stat++/stat-- changes. Discussing larger issues that may contribute to Unit X's problems causes threadjacks because the thread is now about the larger issue, so I see the frustration.

But if you maintain a laser-like focus at single-unit problems, you ignore larger issues in the game. I mean, in his big UP-unit-list-post, he included almost every slow or disarm unit in the game... but then raged when I suggested a blanket-buff on the disarm/slow powers themselves by combining them. Is that the right answer? Idunno. Maybe not. But is it off-topic/tangential? I don't think so


OP post does not refer to you in particular Pxtl, though as you say you do tend to neon

I'll phrase my response in the form of a picture:



I want a)
I dont want b)

b) is entirely pointless. the Devs make the big decisions. you do not influence the devs very much, who likely get their inspiration from sources other than your posts.

Balance discussion is primarily for BALANCE FEEDBACK, nothing more. Balance discussion does NOT = suggesting changes to the unit beyond minor stat changes. Anything more would be a separate thread suggesting an overhaul of the unit.

If the thread was asking for discussion of larger issues, that is fine - but If the thread is infact discussing balance, keep the larger issues out of it. Open a new thread for the larger issue.

Online discussion in a single continual thread does not work unless the topic is kept laser-narrow and concise - the NEW THREAD button exists for a reason!

I entirely relate to Freds frustration.
+5 / -0


10 years ago
quote:
If this effort to improve applies to every low elo player than the elo floor has already justified itself!

I will encourage other low-Elo players to stay that way, and will pollute your threads on their behalf. :)

More seriously - just let the devs hide or delete the posts that think are unproductive, or even outright subforum-ban the people they want to ignore entirely. They don't need to you decide that for them. Your criteria might not be the same as their criteria, and theirs is the only one that matters.
+0 / -0


10 years ago
I appreciate you disliking the tone, but also suggest addressing the arguments made rather than just clutch-reacting with hostility.
+0 / -0
10 years ago
Neonstorms and overhauls are not pointless. When something is as badly broken as sea overhauls are needed.
+3 / -0
Page of 3 (50 records)