n0el wrote:One of the main problems about looking at attack and HP stats is that the two most important attributes for RTS units are range and speed. Factoring that into calculations is extremely difficult. That's where feel and skill makes a big difference. You could "balance" halbs based on attack and HP attributes, but in the end they are still going to be bad because they are slow.
which is why a few top players have already been suggesting that halbs ought to have 5, or if that's to good, 4.5 speed.
Dsy wrote:I think you just have negative assumptions on me. For example: i compare jannissary vs musk and say: hey musk is just more cost effective so jan needs to be buffed. Meanwhile this statment would be bold since otto is one of the strongest rushing civ. Even if statistically it should be buffed civ wise it shouldnt since it would be too op. You need to compare wisely ofc. Actually im not noob as you think. I used to be pr30, now didnt play for years so my account pr25. But know there are plenty better players than me, just dont act like i wouldnt understand the whole game please, its annoying. There is a reason why i compare vet halb to vet musks in melee for example. Both units usually aviable for most of civs and if musk is in melee it acts totally the same. As for my whole standpoint it was its useful for balancing porpuses. Ofc if you play hundreds of game you will have the experience what to make. But after a change you would need to play hundreds of games again to test your changes. It tells the "basic" outcomes (ofc it might be some surprises still).
You might be reading a little too much into things. I don't think anyone is talking about you or your skill level. We are only comparing a mathematical approach to an approach based on experience and frequency of use, when balancing units. At most I would accuse you of an unwillingness to accept that this data is not needed, even after having been told so by a variety of people who have experience both in patching this game and in playing it.
Dsy wrote:I think you just have negative assumptions on me. For example: i compare jannissary vs musk and say: hey musk is just more cost effective so jan needs to be buffed. Meanwhile this statment would be bold since otto is one of the strongest rushing civ. Even if statistically it should be buffed civ wise it shouldnt since it would be too op.
This again shows your lack of knowledge and experience. Top players know that janissaries are insanely strong, and they would never change them for musks. First of all, janissaries die in 3 TC shot while musketeers die in 2, which makes a huge difference. You also forgot to consider that since janissaries have more HP they take longer to die and can thus deal more damage before dying (again, that's why balancing with a calculator is just wrong). Finally, janissaries have a lot of HP and are very hard to kill, and that's why the jan/abus composition is so strong. Abus just eat your army while you try to kill the jans.
You need to compare wisely ofc. Actually im not noob as you think. I used to be pr30, now didnt play for years so my account pr25. But know there are plenty better players than me, just dont act like i wouldnt understand the whole game please, its annoying.
Well you don't. Pr25 isn't good enough to understand how top players play. People have improved a lot in the past years so pr30 in 2010 doesn't mean much.
[Armag] diarouga wrote: Well you don't. Pr25 isn't good enough to understand how top players play. People have improved a lot in the past years so pr30 in 2010 doesn't mean much.
[Armag] diarouga wrote: Well you don't. Pr25 isn't good enough to understand how top players play. People have improved a lot in the past years so pr30 in 2010 doesn't mean much.
lol they really haven't improved that much XD[/quote] Today's ranks are like 5 pr lower than 2010's ranks, thus a guy who was pr30 in 2010-2014 is pr25 today.
Goodspeed wrote:Rather the meta has evolved a lot. A pr30 now is certainly less competitive than a pr30 in 2010.
I don't know about 2010 but I'm sure that the power ranks have decreased while the general level increased over the past years. People like poissondu44, nerpio or 666 used to be pr40 while they are barely 35 today.
"I don't think anyone is talking about you or your skill level." "This again shows your lack of knowledge and experience. " Its quite opposite.
Diarouga: Im not here to show how strong im in this game. And i knew that jan is strong also because it takes 3 tc shoots. The rest of just not true. If tc shoot wouldnt be a thing otto with musks would be much more stronger.
Goodspeed wrote:Rather the meta has evolved a lot. A pr30 now is certainly less competitive than a pr30 in 2010.
I don't know about 2010 but I'm sure that the power ranks have decreased while the general level increased over the past years. People like poissondu44, nerpio or 666 used to be pr40 while they are barely 35 today.
this is mostly because of the amount of players, not because of the skill of the players. also the players you mention most likely have become worse over the years as well. poison and 666 at least play only sporadically
Goodspeed wrote:Rather the meta has evolved a lot. A pr30 now is certainly less competitive than a pr30 in 2010.
I don't know about 2010 but I'm sure that the power ranks have decreased while the general level increased over the past years. People like poissondu44, nerpio or 666 used to be pr40 while they are barely 35 today.
Edited that out because I realized I don't actually know. Last I checked was like 2 years ago