Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Balance discussion

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room >> RE: Balance discussion Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Balance discussion - 11/25/2018 10:33:52 PM   
Neogodhobo


Posts: 503
Joined: 8/17/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain


quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain


quote:

ORIGINAL: Neogodhobo

Balance... What is balance in a war game... Utter bullshit. War isn't balanced, war is pitting a hundreds of officers against each others hoping that yours are going to be better than the others.

How boring would a game be if you could only fight against people of your own caliber. Especially a Wargame simulator.





I will take Germans with Auto Victory condition game. Along with house rule of Leningrad, Moscow, Vorzonezh, and Rostov held in 41 Soviet auto defeat since we all know as a community how this game would turn out in the long run. Along with the standard house rules. I am so glad you don't like balance or what caliber people you fight against.


Pelton's standard house rules just for clarification since we are not worried about balance.



And what is complaining to other players going to do to solve your problem ?

So far, all the people who have been part of the problem, the only thing they have done, is keep new players away, and making the game die each new player at a time. Great solution guys.

< Message edited by Neogodhobo -- 11/25/2018 11:51:09 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Dreamslayer)
Post #: 181
RE: Balance discussion - 11/25/2018 10:39:42 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 3149
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline
Nada

< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 12/28/2018 6:19:36 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Neogodhobo)
Post #: 182
RE: Balance discussion - 11/25/2018 10:42:50 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 3149
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline
Nada

< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 12/28/2018 6:19:51 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Neogodhobo)
Post #: 183
RE: Balance discussion - 11/25/2018 10:48:27 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 3149
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline
Nada

< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 12/28/2018 6:20:03 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 184
RE: Balance discussion - 11/25/2018 11:07:10 PM   
Neogodhobo


Posts: 503
Joined: 8/17/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

There are plenty of great AAR's that have been done by many of these people that you are accusing that have done nothing but help others in this game. Just because you are not agreeing with what is being said doesn't give the right to say these people are the problem for keeping people away. That is just bad IMO.



I dont think were talking about the same thing.

_____________________________


(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 185
RE: Balance discussion - 11/25/2018 11:15:00 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 3149
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline
Nada

< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 12/28/2018 6:20:17 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Neogodhobo)
Post #: 186
RE: Balance discussion - 11/25/2018 11:46:58 PM   
Neogodhobo


Posts: 503
Joined: 8/17/2017
Status: offline
Im talking about people bashing other players, so no, were not talking about the same thing nor the same people. Anyway Im done here, I said what I had to say in my first post.



_____________________________


(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 187
RE: Balance discussion - 11/25/2018 11:57:49 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 3149
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline
Nada

< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 12/28/2018 6:20:32 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Neogodhobo)
Post #: 188
RE: Balance discussion - 11/26/2018 12:12:11 AM   
Neogodhobo


Posts: 503
Joined: 8/17/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
I wanted to see if you would stand up for what you wrote in your first post. I assume you did not mean what you wrote. Good luck.




_____________________________


(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 189
RE: Balance discussion - 11/26/2018 12:12:27 AM   
ledo

 

Posts: 59
Joined: 11/6/2017
Status: offline
I agree that Neogodhobo's language was probably a bit strong, and he was expressing a bit too much frustration, but to put the blame solely on him for the balance discussion becoming increasingly bitter is a bit rich. Maybe we should all spend a bit more time on self-reflection here. The sarcastic comments whenever anyone has a good German game, or the snide, bordering on rude, responses whenever anyone even marginally disagrees with the anti-soviet balance orthodoxy, combined with the accusations that people are axis propagandists any time they dare to disagree (you've been guilty of this a few times yourself HLYA), is something that's been happening for a long time. And I have to say I find it quite frustrating myself. I don't disagree that there might be significant imbalance in the game, I'm not experienced enough to make that assessment. However, I fell in love with this game reading the AARs for many months before I played and the constant bickering in those threads is really not helpful (and may very well turn off new players). This thread is a perfectly suitable place to have this discussion but I feel everyone would benefit from checking their date of birth on their passport and considering whether their behaviour reflects that. Considering the complexity of this game, I assume everyone here is a bit too old to be having a hissy fit every time someone disagrees with them or they don't get their way.

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 190
RE: Balance discussion - 11/26/2018 1:18:26 AM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 3149
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline
Nada

< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 12/28/2018 6:20:47 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to ledo)
Post #: 191
RE: Balance discussion - 11/26/2018 2:01:55 AM   
ledo

 

Posts: 59
Joined: 11/6/2017
Status: offline
The pointing the finger comment and the generalization statement was what I was talking about. The challenge and all that is fine with me. I just think the quality of the debate surrounding balance in this game has been in decline for a while, with multiple flare ups. People seem to oscillate here between being antagonistic and rude to any divergent opinion, to preaching a calm and more polite debate, often its the same people in two different threads.

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 192
RE: Balance discussion - 11/26/2018 2:03:03 AM   
Neogodhobo


Posts: 503
Joined: 8/17/2017
Status: offline
Jesus. It seems you got angry against me for all the wrong reason. My post was not directed at you and I didn't read anything on this whole post apart from Chaos45's post laughing at me. I did read the first page (just now) though and realized some of my points made are wrong. As I understand it, the devs are actually reading this so complaining about some problems in the game would be quite useful, indeed.

Your challenge, I wouldn't mind playing if I already wasn't playing 2 5v5 games and wasnt busy having my personal life (as with everyone).

Im already playing against players who are much better than me so your " He only plays in his own safety bubble" statement againat me is quite out there.

My first game was against Telemecus and his veteran generals in 2by3+. So...yeah. (and we got crushed).


I understand you being angry if youv received hate mail but trust me, its wrongly placed towards me. And yes, I should have read at least the first page before posting.

_____________________________


(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 193
RE: Balance discussion - 11/26/2018 2:43:04 AM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 3149
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline
Nada

< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 12/28/2018 6:21:02 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Neogodhobo)
Post #: 194
RE: Balance discussion - 11/26/2018 2:48:46 AM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 3149
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline
Nada

< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 12/28/2018 6:21:14 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to ledo)
Post #: 195
RE: Balance discussion - 11/26/2018 2:52:12 AM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 3149
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline
Nada

< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 12/28/2018 6:21:28 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 196
RE: Balance discussion - 11/26/2018 3:19:25 AM   
Neogodhobo


Posts: 503
Joined: 8/17/2017
Status: offline
Thanks, I do love challenges in my games and I have no doubt you would crush me. Il let you know but so far, we are still in 1941 in the 2by3+ games so Im probably going to be free in about 4 years ;)

_____________________________


(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 197
RE: Balance discussion - 11/26/2018 6:39:28 AM   
SparkleyTits

 

Posts: 838
Joined: 10/7/2016
From: England
Status: offline
I sorely miss the debates and discussions that have all but dissapeared from the incessent brow beating
Perhaps HL is right and if the devs could let us know a little then we could all prepare or find our own work arounds for if there were to be changes in one way or another or heck even none at all

However I agree with Ledo shouting "I know best" mentality permeating the forum is killing a lot of interest, myself included as the social side of the game and the forum pale comapred to what it used to be atm
What is important to me is that the most amount of people possible enjoy themselves as much as they can and if people are enjoying themselves then mission accomplished as this is ultimately a game
What is much more harmful is anybody being so adamant that they are "right" and feeling vindicated in theirs being the only publicly opinion heard, this is not a 1 party state, it's a game, chill out abit, none of us area really Stalin or Hitler, don't let it get to your head so much

Ultimately this game has far far far too many variables to accurately guess how every mechanic will mesh in every game for anyone below the 0.001% and even if the 0.001% put those views onto others games they will instantly be incorrect as they are not you and they will not play the same and it will not go in the way you envisioned, that is the nature of all games, they are subjective, it's how all online competetive games work especially, none of us are important enough to warrant this kind of ego, whether a beginner, pro or veteran, we're a collective

If anyone is losing 90 games out of 100 as either side then pick your opponents more carefully, reflect on how you can better yourself but it is not the games fault that it is happening, that's myopic and selfish

(in reply to Neogodhobo)
Post #: 198
RE: Balance discussion - 11/26/2018 2:39:12 PM   
Neogodhobo


Posts: 503
Joined: 8/17/2017
Status: offline
snip as msg was not relevent.

< Message edited by Neogodhobo -- 11/26/2018 4:09:22 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to SparkleyTits)
Post #: 199
RE: Balance discussion - 11/26/2018 2:47:52 PM   
SparkleyTits

 

Posts: 838
Joined: 10/7/2016
From: England
Status: offline
I always use fast reply so my messages often reply to whoever spoke last
The message was not meant for you in particular buddy no, it was meant for our illustrious comrades all over the forum

(in reply to Neogodhobo)
Post #: 200
RE: Balance discussion - 11/26/2018 2:59:45 PM   
chaos45

 

Posts: 1786
Joined: 1/22/2001
Status: offline
If you have time to lose 90 out of 100 games you my friend have way to much free time lol

(in reply to SparkleyTits)
Post #: 201
RE: Balance discussion - 11/27/2018 1:51:25 PM   
Colbert

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 5/4/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ledo
The pointing the finger comment and the generalization statement was what I was talking about... I just think the quality of the debate surrounding balance in this game has been in decline for a while, with multiple flare ups. People seem to oscillate here between being antagonistic and rude to any divergent opinion, to preaching a calm and more polite debate, often its the same people in two different threads.


I have not really posted much here since I first joined - and until recently enjoyed the atmosphere on the site. I think we can all see it has gone down the toilet.

But I have to thank Ledo for spurring me on to finally commnet. I was one of those new guys who kept an army in reserve for a final attack - it was required in qn old board game so it seems to me not unreasonable for many beginners to do that. Not something to be laughed at.

But the rank hypocrisy of some of the posters above is amazing. After a long time I was tempted to join one of the team games - and we can all see the trolling and poison there. Go and have a look at the 9PM opponents wanted posts. Someone preaching calm here was trying to take over someone else's game. They posted so much poison that I do not feel I can post an interest there - and I can see no one else has.

It has come to the point when the trollers do need to be called out -particularly when they masquerade as something else elsewhere. If not then all other new guys or the ones not wanting to see that stuff will be put off this site completely.

< Message edited by Colbert -- 11/27/2018 2:24:33 PM >

(in reply to ledo)
Post #: 202
RE: Balance discussion - 11/29/2018 7:03:01 AM   
VigaBrand

 

Posts: 300
Joined: 12/19/2014
From: Germany
Status: offline
Could we be on track with balance, if we allow the soviets to use there airborne brigades?
At the moment most rulesets disallow that, but with the actual german performance, this could bring some well soviet weapons back in the game.

_____________________________




(in reply to Colbert)
Post #: 203
RE: Balance discussion - 11/29/2018 12:16:13 PM   
Beria


Posts: 396
Joined: 4/6/2017
Status: offline
I think the airborne rule was to avoid artificial play like breaking rail repair - so not just about balance. But yes you can look at all the standard house rules and options - allow naval invasions, or even both +1 and full blizzard.

(in reply to VigaBrand)
Post #: 204
RE: Balance discussion - 11/29/2018 12:34:26 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 3149
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline
Nada

< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 12/28/2018 6:21:53 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Beria)
Post #: 205
RE: Balance discussion - 11/29/2018 12:54:41 PM   
Beria


Posts: 396
Joined: 4/6/2017
Status: offline
So the core issue is about allowing the Soviet side to attack successfully in 1941?

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 206
RE: Balance discussion - 11/29/2018 1:04:19 PM   
HardLuckYetAgain


Posts: 3149
Joined: 2/5/2016
Status: offline
Nada

< Message edited by HardLuckYetAgain -- 12/28/2018 6:22:18 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Beria)
Post #: 207
RE: Balance discussion - 11/29/2018 1:35:51 PM   
SparkleyTits

 

Posts: 838
Joined: 10/7/2016
From: England
Status: offline
Fighting along broader fronts helps to still get gains currently but it means it's harder to get the flashy operations in over winter
Having airborne and amphibs allowed in more games would help bring more variety and options but you could still easily have a house rule that stops hitting the rail lines with those options

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 208
RE: Balance discussion - 11/29/2018 1:44:17 PM   
Colbert

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 5/4/2017
Status: offline
The team games had the no suicide rule - do look at the 9PM opponents wanted thread

(in reply to SparkleyTits)
Post #: 209
RE: Balance discussion - 11/29/2018 1:52:50 PM   
Beria


Posts: 396
Joined: 4/6/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain


quote:

ORIGINAL: Beria

So the core issue is about allowing the Soviet side to attack successfully in 1941?


No. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. The full blizzard just plays differently at the moment because of the extra MP from failed attacks.

So before blizzard yes - but not beyond that?

(in reply to HardLuckYetAgain)
Post #: 210
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room >> RE: Balance discussion Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.172