momuuu wrote:This would be defined as the most general form of my statement. The statement that reaching balance where every match up is 50/50 is basically impossible without standardizing the civs could be taken as an axiom. It should be extremely obvious why this is true, so I did not provide any argumentation for it as that seemed unnecessary. Then, the next statement is also axiomatic in nature: Every civ will have some strats that work in different match ups with different winrates. I then make the assumption, just as an simple example to make the point more clear, that these winrates are between 40% and 60%. This is a simplification to make the point more clear and I clearly imply this does not necessarily mean it's factually true.
Ok, there is no need for this clarification. I agree on that and it was obviously very clear.
My most general point is a set of very obvious axioms and an assumption to make the following point more clear. Nowhere in your post are these points addressed and nowhere is any other statement that is not an example. I fail to see where you even 'confute the general statement'. But oh well, logical structure isn't necessary to be right I suppose.
Err..no. The following points don't adhere with the axiom. The main flaw is that while German win rate could be well approximated between 40% and 60%, this axiom is only true if the whole map pool is considered. On TP only maps is rather agreeable that German win rate is, on average, between 50% and 60%. In order to have their whole MU pool between 40% and 60% you need to consider also no TP maps.
Please note this is still a simplification because ignores all the other map features that contribute to one civ's win rate over the various MUs.
Let's then move on to the section where I use an example to make a point and you supposedly point out it isn't particularly helpful. The corresponding section of my post would be this:
A good example would be germany; they'd have those winrates against all civs doing uhlan semi FF (which is basically their only viable strat).
Let's try to examine the logical structure of this post more clearly. First, there is this statement: Germany would have balanced winrates (previously defined as winrates between 40-60%) against all civs doing uhlan semi FF. This would obviously again be a simplification of the truth for the sake of the argument. The point being that Germany clearly doesn't have 50-50% winrates against every civ (this I will not prove, but I think is obvious enough to not require elaborate proof or discussion). I then claim that Germany should basically always do an Uhlan FF as it is by far their best strategy in every match up. It is again a simplification, but it is useful to get the general point across. It seems quite clear that all of this is an example.
Again it's very important to point out, for the overall assesment of the argument, that the balanced winrates statement is only true if all Competitive maps are taken into account. Otherwise there already a flaw in the whole reasoning.
Lets look a little more at my point:
That strat of course is much weaker without a trading post. So then, for no TP maps, we would need to buff some german style that doesn't use a TP. That'd probably be the xbow pike rush then.
I then proceed to say the uhlan semi FF is of course much weaker without a trading post, which seems like an obvious statement. The thing we are discussing is balancing for both TP and no TP maps, so I proceed to discuss how Germany would need a buff on no TP maps. I don't clearly explain why they need a buff on no TP maps because it seemed very obvious to me. But for clarity: The underlying assumption (again, a simplified example here, don't nitpick on the details) is that germany is balanced on TP maps, that the uhlan semi FF is their only viable strat, which is much worse on no TP maps, so they are not balanced on no TP maps. This is an example; the statement could be made generic: Some civ is using a strategy that relies on a TP and mostly uses that strategy in their match ups. It is nowhere near as good as it is on other maps, so they are too weak on no TP maps. Note also that the entire line of presented logic holds true if Uhlan semi FF is by far the most used strategy for germany. It doesn't have to be the exclusively viable strategy, I just assumed this to make the argument more clear.
Again, the underlying assumption is flawed. Even with all nerfs and counternerfs in place, Germans are still not balanced on TP maps. Failing to aknowledge this just invalidaes the whole argument.
I am confused by this. Not only do you fail to realize there is a simplification being used for the sake of clarity, the way you respond to it is simple nonsensical. Nowhere in my post can I be found stating that xbow pike and uhlan semi FF are mutually exclusive, or that that is important. I will get to where you might get that idea from in a second. First, lets look at my 'main flaw': Apperantly, I think that the uhlan semi FF is weaker without a TP. You are basically saying that Germany's Uhlan semi FF is sometimes better without taking a TP. This statement is ridiculous; I didn't try to prove that the uhlan semi FF is weaker without a TP because it is as trivial as something can be. Your reasoning for this can be rephrased as: "sometimes it's better to not take a TP for a certain strategy because it might make a rush weaker". What's absolutely confusing about this is that the uhlan semi FF is never a rush, in no scenario, and thus your argument doesn't at all apply to what I wrote down. You again nitpick on a detail, xbow pike rush being apperantly already viable on adirondacks (I think generally any good player would mark this as nonsense, but it doesn't even matter for the point at all as I already explained).
I do totally realize it is a simplification, but it is a bad one. My answer has sense but you fail to understand it.
It is
me pointing out that the two strats mutually exclusive. That's important. If you buff xbows you don't necessarily and automatically make Germans stronger on TP maps, because xbows are employed only on a xbow strat (optimal for no TP maps) but not on a ulhan semi FF (optimal for TP maps).
I never said Ulhan semi FF is better without a TP. That's simply you failing at reading compehension.
And again I don't know why you insist with the ulhan semi FF when I'm refering to a buffed xbow strat on a TP map. Such strat is indeed a rush and despite being still better with a TP rather than without most of times, sometimes can be more effective to save the 200w for the rush. More importantly tho, it is a second best choice, assuming with this that the TP ulhan semi will have a higher winrate distribution.
And as for the detail I provide about xbow/pike timing viable on Adirondacks (in mirror I should add), it is correct and you have no right to call it nonsense.
Your last point doesn't really apply to anything at all. I took an example of buffing xbow/pike as a strategy that is TP independent. It was an example, I could have taken doppelsoldners aswell, or the 5 uhlan shipment of the 9 xbow shipment or anything exclusive to german colonial. I could have been less specific and just said: buff germany's colonial in general without buffing their uhlan semi FF. It's a fucking example, you don't need to focus on the details. You just need to try to use logic to follow the general point.
Ye, except that not every general colonial buff is the same. Of course if you buff dopples even more then ye on TP it will overperform. But if you buff something that is very likely weak at the moment and that coincidentially is something that can improve no TP play, then it's a complete different story.
As you can see simplifications do matter and one must be careful making them.
Speaking about the general point, you didn't address my most generic statement and fail to adress the conclusion I draw from using a few examples. Lets look at the rest of my post. First note that so far you've basically only nitpicked on three lines that I wrote down, which are basically an example I used to make things more clear. My post could be written more generically, and then be guided by more specific examples if necessary, and the underlying logic would still hold true. So far, you have thus confuted nothing I said except for things that were clearly used as a hypothetical example to clarify the point. So far, you have not confuted my points like you said you have. Lets move on with the last bit of my post:
I confuted it by adding game knowledge to your assumptions (based on an inaccurate example) which completely make them suspicious to say the least.
momuuu wrote:So then xbow pike becomes a competitive strat (winrates between 40% and 60% aswell).
The problem is that xbow pike will still be reasonably viable on the TP maps: The chances are very big however that xbow pike turns out to be a 50-60% winrate strategy in match ups where the uhlan semi FF is a 40-50% match up. So then, by having two distinct viable strategies, the added flexibility will make a civ stronger still on TP maps than on no TP maps. The result is that any civ that has a very strong TP strategy is very likely going to be stronger on TP maps than on no TP maps just because of the added flexibility (if there is a good no TP strategy at all, otherwise they're obviously also better on TP maps). I don't see how this can reliably be worked around, and given that the balance team is already struggling to get a grasp on balance as is, I think they should just ignore no TP maps entirely.
Take xbow pike as an example here again, it might aswell be replaced with a generic germany playstyle that is different from the strats that can use trading posts. Here is the simple logic that is provided here in the form of an example: When a civilization has an option that has 40-60% winrates in all match ups that doesn't require a trading post, and also has an option that has 40-60% winrates in all match ups that does require a trading post, then on TP maps that civilization clearly has the choice between two strategies. There are match ups where the no TP strategy is better than the TP strategy and match ups where the TP strategy is better than the no TP strategy. Combine these two strategies, and the average winrate will obviously be higher, as you'll be taking the best possible winrate of those strats. The conclusion is then that balancing a civilization on no TP maps with a no TP strat will lead to that civilization being overpowered on TP maps if they have a TP strategy that is in isolation balanced too. To actually balance for no TP maps and TP maps, you will have to nerf TP strategies to the point where they are a non factor. That is the point I make, and that is never adressed by you. Instead you nitpick on details.
Err...no. Again. You can't just assume that the two strats both have between 40-60 winrate for
all MUs. The TP strategy is likely to have 40-60 winrate for
some MUs. The other strategy, being a second best choice, is going to have a 40-60 winrate on the
remaining MUs. This is, again, because the two strats are mutually exclusive and can't be well combined.
You do use the flexibility argument, but again even if the two options can overlap in the same MU, that doesn't necessarily provide any win rate advantage to the civ, but just play diversity.
To round up your nitpicking, in which you completely ignore my actual point, you follow up with this:
The second inaccuracy of this reasoning is inherent to the example itself. Boosting xbow/pike most likely means just buffing xbows base damage (better than improving the multiplier vs HI). A xbow buff is something desirable in general because xbow unit is simply mediocre at the moment compared to all other RI units in colonial. So there is really no danger to make it overperforming on TP maps. On the other hand a simple buff like that can help a lot overall and specifically when Germans can't age up quickly.
This is the most confusing argument of the bunch. A generic example that has nothing to do with buffing xbows or pikes is again being nitpicked on. You use a made up fact that buffing xbows is something desirable in general. This comes out of nowhere, and I don't see how this is supported by any evidence provided by you in the post. To stay in your style, I will counter by saying that you are wrong because unicorns find it true that you are wrong. I also made up a statement out of nowhere and have provided no evidence for it, but in your world that apperantly suffices as 'argument', so here you go.
This is just you raving. You pick an example and you refuse to aknowledge it has practical implication on your assumptions.
Xbow buff is desirable. I won't get in detail since it's not opportune here. I will just say that it helps German no TP instances while it is neglectable on TP maps, which is the relevant thing here.
Nowhere in your point to you confute the actual logic. You just nitpick a bit and the largest part of your post is a typical garjument: some made up thing stated as if it is a fact, with no evidence provided for it. The unicorns disapprove garja. You didn't prove anything I said wrong; you hardly even responded to it. I would like to see you actually respond to the logic in my post, and actually make serious arguments that aren't you nitpicking something I used as a simplified example.
I do confute it being your assumption are full of inaccuracies.
Boosting no TP doesn't necessarily translates in improved TP play, whether it is from the same strategy being stronger or any added flexibility to the range of viable strategies.
PS.: Sorry for readers that my post hasn't been very coherent. Garja's arguments were very incoherent with regards to the post I made. Garja does this a lot, he picks out some stupid details, talks about those without actually responding to your actual post and then acts as if he has shown you are wrong. I could respond to these in isolation, but then garja hijacks the discussion away from the point brought up and into the territory of senseless nitpicking and garjuing. I instead chose to try and put Garja's post in the perspective of actually proving me wrong, and then showing that he didn't even come close to proving me wrong. My apoligies for the incoherence, but there is no way to coherently discuss with garja unfortunately.
You are dead wrong and you say all this. You're a clown when you do this.
