Balance Subforum Request

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

I appreciate you disliking the tone, but also suggest addressing the arguments made rather than just clutch-reacting with hostility.