Balance forum feedback - What happened to part 4 of the guidelines?

[fuggles]

Slow_Runner edit: This is now a general feedback/suggestion thread on how you would like to see Balance Issues shaping up in the future, see post 13 (http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?p=2371931#post2371931) for further details.

---------------

Part 4 - Evidence is the key to a Balance issue, provide either a link to a replay, a screen shot or a detailed account to help back your agruement. Failure to provide any evidence will result in your thread being locked.


Pride embellishes and statistics lie so I don't believe that detailed accounts, even backed up with Relic Wiki are all that reliable. Also, these 'issues' tend to come up after you have received a drubbing, so that would be the time to save your temp.rec and come on board the good ship forum.

Ironically I'm sure this will be locked in itself, but I don't think any thread on this page has replays attached which is leading to circular arguments and in turn frustration and hostility.

Zounds! The irony, you can't even attach in this forum.... I won't post my screenshot of the lack of attachments on this page.

So, mods, could you please reconsider the non-attachment part of this plan and everyone else, could you please post more replays?

Also, as a bonus, should Relic produce another patch, then maybe having clear visual evidence rather than wild theorycrafting would help our cases? You never know.

[Hirmetrium]

Evidence is normally shown through replays and people argueing valid proven points throughout the thread. Unless your asking more players pack out their first post rather than pointing out potential issues.

[fuggles]

Yes, I'm suggesting something similar to "If you wanna post you put in a replay". This does also give room for counter replays to prove contrary. It's been a huge problem since DC, people flaming at each other about necrons, necrons flaming back etc.

I would like to state now that this is not about necrons per say, but they have had the bitterest flame wars, although the Khorne Bezerkers was going that way.

You can't just fall back on what you call 'valid proven points' as people refuse to believe. Let's get empirical!

You must have seen tons of replays Hirmetrium, so you must know their value as teaching aids. Same principle.

[Hirmetrium]

That was originally discussed before these rules were setup. I was told by slow_runner they felt it was un-nesessary.

EDIT: Why in craps name is my grammar so bad tonight?
EDIT2: My god, its so bad I want to kill myself now. I just made a complete ass out of myself >_<

[Buguba]

Is this really considered a balance issue or a forum nitpick?

Problem is this. Most imbas are noticed through a COURSE of games played. Some of us discover that FO spam is moronic after the first game, but generally you realize an imbalance after multiple games played.

However, I think you do have a point. A replay would be nice. But you'll notice that there's an entire section of the forum DEDICATED to replays. Sometimes people will post an imbalance and then show a replay in the appropriate forum.

Also remember this too, statistics DON'T lie, they just can be misinterpreted. White Pointer created a thread on the possible imbalance of the scarab detection range. So is it a lie to say that scarabs have 35 detection range?... (thats what I think it was at least). He didn't pull a false statistic out of the hat, he just pointed out that the Necrons builder unit has a ridiculously long keen sight range. Then it's up for debate if the range is neccesarry or not.

It would be a lie if I said that Earthshakers were imba because they do some 2000 damage to every unit in the game across the board. That's presenting a misinterpreted statistic because in truth they are balanced out by the fact that they cost more than a Hellhound, and are only in t3.

In the end it's more convenient to not have to attach replays to every thread we post, because sometimes the nitpicks are so small that it's not really noticable (Guardian infantry_medium damage anyone?...) So if you're really having a problem with people not having replays attached to their post, then just have them remember to tell people about the replay they posted in the correct forum.

[Zany Reaper]

The forums don't allow me to upload record files here for some reason. Whenever I try to upload them they get rejected.

[fuggles]

"Is this really considered a balance issue or a forum nitpick?" well on another page there will be a different part 4 :P Maybe consensus says it's a small point, in which I'm wrong, move on, but I feel it doesn't happen NEARLY enough and leads to stagnant arguments with neither side willing to find proof.

Lies and misinterpretations are similarly uselss when trying to discover the truth. Your earthshaker is the case in point, there are so many things to take into account with any one aspect of DoW, reload, cost, accuracy, reinforcement and also vacuum issues that a solid replay is better. If you notice it over a course of games, then post a course of replays - it might be that player has a key game weakness.

Plus, how is it more convenient to have to trog off to another thread? You then get 2 threads on the same topic.

Oh, and and more edit for that necessary Hirm? ;)

[SubakuGaara]

Replays tend to be overlooked too quickly. If the balance discussion is a good one, people forget about the replay. If its a bad one, the replay won't matter. If its a questionable one, people tend to nitpick at the individual play of the competitors involved. For example. if I say reapers are imba cause they do too much damage, and show a replay with Fragons taking down several LPs in quick fashion, a lot of people will say get more raptors or turret or something, which may be true, but doesn't really help the balance discussion.

In essence what I would really like would be simple polls per balance thread, which the general possible positions people could have instead of just an open thread and open discussion. I also think threads are created a bit too freely with several that overlap greatly. A more stern moderating process is probably needed. Maybe a requirement that the balance thread be submitted to or discussed with a moderator before it is opened.

But in a nutshell, having or not having a replay will neither greatly hurt or greatly strengthen a thread.

[Troubleshooter]

IMO these threads are good from time to time, to check the progression of the various forums.

It may not be a balance forum "thread" but here is the best place to get the attention of the various players who will want to start another thread of "I got beat by IMBA!!!"

I think the replay requirement is mostly to weed out the noobs. If chris posts a thread here on IG balance, I am not going to need a replay from him... but some noob with no cred. is going to have to prove quite a bit to pull the same trick.

Ultimately, the rules are just there to provide some pre-filtering. As these forums get going late in a patch, theres not alot of enforcement as any enforcement would wind up setting the bar so high as to discuorage any participation at all. So the sub-forum will degrade until some thread like this comes along, or a moderator initiative, and essentially try to hit the "reset" button on the contribution level.

Notice the the standards in the week following release were very high, and now you almost have to try to get a thread opener locked.

Its the natural order :)

[drcole]

I don't know about it being a strict requirement but I certainly agree that threads would really benefit from some replay backup, which really IS the best way to illustrate your balance argument AND provide an opportunity for people rebut it.

[Melonplant]

Hey zany, you gotta zip them. It says it accepts .rec files, but whenever i try it gets an error. Zipping makes it stop, but maybe it was just bad luck.

And even though the balance forums is not for "venting," lets be honest. Its for venting a little frustration. And its fun to flame and get away with it. Eventually the dumb ones die and the good ones might be possibly glanced at by someone who might care and happen to work for dow balance section and he could happen to remember it as he goes in to his 1.3 version editor thingy.

I was pissed off about turrets for a couple of days cuz I said they were teh ImBa, but after posting my replay and getting a few tips i saw that it was mostly water under the bridge (dirty water)

STILL want my slight increase in build time guys!

[Akranadas]

Hey Guys,

Keep on criticizing this part of the forum please. I'll raise your concerns with my fellow moderators shortly as well as give you all some answers to your questions, so ask more. :)

[Slow_Runner]

The ability to add replays to a balance thread is starting to sound like a good idea to me.

EDIT: In fact, hell, let's have a good duke out about the whole forum while we're at it. Any issues you have with the Balance forum, please bring it up here.

What kind of proof would you see required of a balance thread?
What kind of balance suggestions would be viable (ie. is adding a new ability for example a viable suggestion)?
Would you like to see limits on how many times you can get the facts wrong before getting kicked out of the forum?
Would you like to see changes to the thread format?

Thread title edited accordingly. Discuss.

[Energizer Bunny]

I agree but I wouldn't want to see this as a requirement of starting a balance thread. There are certain balance issues which are easily quantified into a replay and certain balance issues which are not.

[Zany Reaper]

maybe it was just bad luck.Almost certainly. My bad luck forbids me to lead a normal life, my perception of reality is screwed.

Yeah, thanks for the Tip melonplant, I'll take that into account instead of using savefile.com :)

I also agree that rec (or in zip) files should be uploaded onto balance threads to justify things.
In the Bezerker thread I brought up, I've been asked more than 5 times for a replay that I cannot provide at the moment.

[fuggles]

@Energiser Bunny - I see your point, and this links into TroubleShooter's point about how some people are less likely to post cack, but can we find a midground (post count/join date both seem horrible)? A generally accepted, and enforced replay if possible rule?

I think everything is demonstratable, although you may have to generate the specific scenario to prove it. Perhaps we should try and rustle up a forum team willing to do labs? Not to bang on, but this zerker vs Tau thing could have been solved 10X over by 2 teams of 2 people trying specific builds.

For some of the more drastic solutions it might be worth having a link to an AE tutorial so that when people say 'Hey the necron lord show cost 10000 and have a webway as a pre-requisite" you could ask them to try it out first. Again, maybe the lab team might help test out these changes (I'm thinking single tweaks rather than community balance mod).

@Slow_Runner - The changes to the IG seemed to suggest that Relic either does not read or does not pay heed to the balance threads. Perhaps this is down to the too-many-cooks scenario, or the fact that we never agree. However, this makes it hard to know what is/is not viable. I think we would all very much appreciate one of the mods asking Relic as to whether things such as new abilities ARE viable or if they are considering just number tweaking, ala no brainer thread, or whether we are now officially in the DIY stage of Dark Crusade.

Personally, if you can back it up then I'm willing to read and discuss anything really.

Finally (phew) maybe threads could have an ongoing poll by default of "this thread is now gibberish" where you can vote when something starts to deteriorate. I'm just not sure how you could enforce against someone who keeps posting dren?

[Chris]

The changes to the IG seemed to suggest that Relic either does not read or does not pay heed to the balance threads.

That's because most of the IG changes in that huge mutha of a thread were stupid and would have been better suited to the suggestion box anyway. Sorry guys, I know a lot of people put effort into compiling that thread but a lot of the changes would have never happened in a month of sundays.

Moving onto the issue at hand;

I personally think evidence should be enforced on the basis that literally anyone can post "oh I just had a game where X happened and Y was imbalanced omfg!". As we have seen especially with necron related threads we just get 10 pages of one player saying necrons are too strong and another player saying omg no they're not. Yes they are! No they're not! Yes they are! Page after page after page and not a single piece of evidence to support either side. I know to a lot of experienced players the balance issues are quite obvious but unless you back it up with at least 1 replay there's absolutely nothing to stop newbies or idiots to just argue you to death with pure theorycraft.

Actually I'm pretty sure there will always be idiots arguing pure theorycraft in the balance forum but replays should help shut some of them up. I think at least 1 replay to start the thread off should be enforced and if you repeatedly encounter the issue then make the effort to save the replay and update the thread. I also think that forum users who repeatedly argue a point should eventually be asked to effectively post a replay or gtfo but this would be done at moderators discretion.

[Dondanno]

Slow_Runner:

I don't think a full-on forum booting for failing to present correct facts would be all that appropriate. I don't know, it just seems a little draconian to go that far, though I would agree that some sort of disciplinary action should be taken against repeat offenders.

A guideline on evidence for balance discussions/suggestions would be great, whether the evidence is stats or replays it would help people visualise the issue quickly and (hopefully) generate more robust and structured discussions.

[Energizer Bunny]

You have to be careful with this though. If I post a replay showing something happening in a game and you want to argue against what I'm saying (perhaps I lost cos my micro is cack etc etc) am I going to start demanding that you in turn provide a replay to show I'm wrong? If so, is it then going to become mandatory that a replay is provided when making any kind of statement in the balance forum?

Also, like I was saying earlier, some things are easily quantifiable in a replay, others arent. For example, lets say I am of the general opinion that the Sorc/Zerk combo is too strong. Whenever I play vs chaos I get to that combo and then begin to lose my grip on the game, then eventually lose. That happens over the course of about 30 games. How do I distil that feeling into a single replay. Each and every game I'm going to make various mistakes (which a pro-Chaos player is imediately going to seize upon as the reason I lost) and it may not be a situation where Zerks arrive and bang, the games over. It may be much more of a slow burn situation.

Dont get me wrong, a stronger stance on the provision of replays is a great idea. The current thread about Nightmare Shroud is a perfect example of a situation where a replay can perfectly quantify and explain an issue and tee up discussion of it. That said, I feel that on less clear-cut imbalances a replay is not going to settle the issue and it will again come down to people's own experiences of a particular issue. Replays, like statistics, can often be used to argue pretty much whatever people want.

[Melonplant]

Replays should not be required in certain cases. For example, the speed fiend post. Not sure if that is a balance issue in the first place...but i dont want to watch a replay of a chaos player using speed fiend...

It would be nice, however, if you could only post in a thread after downloading the replay. I know you cant make them watch it, but a few warnings thrown at posters who say stuff like "I didn't watch the replay, but you're a retard" would be great.

Or maybe every balance issue should have a poll at the top. If enough players agree that the issue deserves discussion after say, a few days, then the topic can remain open. Otherwise, closed and locked.

I do not want to even see a topic saying something like "Ork grot rush killed my termiesss" get even a reply.

(Can this forum make it easier to upload and download replays? Sure its just a matter of finding the file, zipping it, and a few annoying tasks, but maybe someone could create a program that can be stickied at the top of the battle archives that makes replay viewing zipping downloading easier?)

[ImmortalChaos]

I think it would be highly reasonable to make one uploaded replay manditory for creating a thread in the balance section. No proof no thread.

[LegionEarth]

Would you like to see limits on how many times you can get the facts wrong before getting kicked out of the forum?


I would love to see limits on how many times you can get something wrong before being booted. If only that could be applied to the strategy forum as well. That would ensure that some people won't derail threads and spout nonsense.

[Vytae]

The single thing that needs to happen for the balance forum,is for a Relic employee to either speak to a moderator,or post himself and shoot down idea's that arent going to happen. This allows people to work on whats feasible and save Relic some time if they are indeed thinking of a new patch.

The employee's job is to do nothing more then say "Not gonna happen" or "maybe,if we have time". He will need a thick skin because he will get flamed. He dosent need to give any info,or release dates simply tell people whats not gonna happen :nyah:

[Jaimas]

That's because most of the IG changes in that huge mutha of a thread were stupid and would have been better suited to the suggestion box anyway. Sorry guys, I know a lot of people put effort into compiling that thread but a lot of the changes would have never happened in a month of sundays.

No offense taken. That goddamn thing was a threadnaught, and I can understand why a lot of it wasn't dug through.

Of course, that doesn't explain the entire email exchange I had with Fell, but that's besides the point right now...


My only request for these boards?

Something that me and virtually every other player who comes to this board to debate balance issues regularly has asked for no less than 20 times a pop:

A Patchlog.

Can we please, for the love of all that's cute and cuddly, get at least some insight into the unfathomable reasonings of Relic's patchmakers for changing the game how they have?

Would it destabilize the universe to actually throw us a bone once in a while, so we can at least try to interpret what Relic actually has in mind regarding certain races and so we can get some grasp of why certain races are the way they are?

I honestly don't think it would, and it would cut down on the sheer volume of "OK, why did stupid mechanic X make it into Y patch, it does nothing to help race Z and opens up a whole new can of worms elsewhere, why did Relic do this" threads, which we all are now acutely aware follow every single goddamn patch.

Seriously, can you ponder just how much a Patchlog would have helped the last two or three patch cycles?

Instead of page after page of "why was this retard power sword change implemented for SM" posts following WA, we can get more of a "the power sword change is a drawback to the Space Marines, should not be used, and here is why" posts.

That's progress, damnit. With the patchlog, there's no question over why something was done. With the patchlog, there's no arguments over what Relic was intending to do with a change in a given patch.

The dark side of course, is that it also inadvertantly forces Relic to say why it dragged its heels on some issues (IG CC morale damage coming readily to mind), but that isn't the point.

The point is that it helps this board out. A lot.

[Melonplant]

I think rather than buff IG, they decided to nerf everyone else. An easy way to balance this game would be something like this...

Halve the damage of all units.

Now, rather than losing all your squads of a period of 6 seconds, you have 12 to retreat and do all your fancy micro work. Flayed ones won't annihilate your armies in broken messes, psychic inquisition wont blow up your guardsmen minds, etc...

That is a very broad and generalized statement and an uncomplicated and by all means incomplete solution. I seriously agree that they should give us a reason WHY they do what they do. In company of heroes they say something like...

"The jeep was overly effective against axis infantry. Dps reduced."

Why didn't relic say

"Flayed ones moved to T1.5 to make necrons easier to play"

Or whatever they HONESTLY intended to do with that. As for these forums, they are always just flame wars and will remain flame wars until relic acknowledges our existence, not as forum posters, but as players of a game that is occasionally frustrating.

And its only frustrating because we love it so!

[Jaimas]

No, it's frustrating and stupid, because we're left here trying to figure out WTF Relic wants to do with unit X in race Y and situation Z, as opposed to so much a throwing us a damn clue.

I'll say it again: Can you imagine how much smoother patching would have gone had there been a log? If there had been some kind of explanation for some of the changes that have been made, or why certain issues still remain (Whirlwind not dealing friendly fire and avatar vehicle pop boost GODDAMNIT WHAT THE HELL RELIC)?

1.2 helped more than it hurt, but the sheer volume of crap that remains, and the sheer level of threads still open regarding 1.2 changes are both indications of why a Patchlog would help immensely.

Of course, we currently have no way of knowing if there even is another patch down the pipeline, but that's sort of besides the point.

[Hirmetrium]

The main reason behind it was because of what happened in the CoH forum. Buggo, being the kind and awesome person she is, posted the log up very early for all to see. The resulting flame fest and war that happened was enough (this part is guess work) to force the admins to request for it not to happen again. I daresay that even after a bold, caps, coloured message of 'DO NOT WHINE ABOUT BALANCE CHANGES', getting a lot of whines must of been pretty offputting.

Of course it means we hardcore Relic DoW supporters get the short end of the stick and never see a patch log again in our lives. damn.

If you feel that strongly Jaimas, Email her. the address is ahenze@relic.com , and I'm sure if you ask her nicely she will be inclined to either dig for it or pass your email on to somebody who might be inclined to talk.

Why not just copy and paste this post to show I support you, because I definately agree it would be a nice thing to have a change log.

[fuggles]

It would be nice to know if we were getting a patch period, then we can talk logs.

I've seen Buggo on Dow Sanctuary more than here and all you get from her is that she'll take it to the rest of Relic. Fair enough, but can we get some responses back?

[Cyberbob]

The main reason behind it was because of what happened in the CoH forum.

DoW predates CoH by a good couple of years. Where were the logs back then?

[dreddnott]

We've always had changelogs but usually no justification for the changes therein, I believe that's what Jaimas is talking about...

I never checked the credits in any of the games but to me it doesn't really feel like the people who balanced Dawn of War or Winter Assault were the same as the people who balanced Dark Crusade, or even talked to them.

As far as the evidence required to create a thread, this problem goes way back...we would have had to deal with a lot less spam and trolling if threads started with a replay. That would set a precedent for not only other thread starters but people replying to the thread: they could post their own replays.

Also of note is the fact that the Dawn of War Player's Guide (on RelicWiki) is not 100% accurate or reliable. It doesn't take into account close-combat special attack damage - for Flayed Ones in DC 1.1, for instance, these values were extremely high. For other units it might actually decrease the total amount of damage done over time.

This has caused some problems on this forum with people who have never played a given race (or never played automatch, etc.) but assume they can make a point with copypasta from the wiki that may or may not be accurate or relevant.

Require replays!

[Melonplant]

Also of note is the fact that the Dawn of War Player's Guide (on RelicWiki) is not 100% accurate or reliable.

It's more accurate than people talking out of their ass though. I don't mind stat postings as part of the evidence.

[Jaimas]

The main reason behind it was because of what happened in the CoH forum. Buggo, being the kind and awesome person she is, posted the log up very early for all to see. The resulting flame fest and war that happened was enough (this part is guess work) to force the admins to request for it not to happen again. I daresay that even after a bold, caps, coloured message of 'DO NOT WHINE ABOUT BALANCE CHANGES', getting a lot of whines must of been pretty offputting.

Of course it means we hardcore Relic DoW supporters get the short end of the stick and never see a patch log again in our lives. damn.

Bob touched on this, noble Hirmetrium, but it bears mention again; WA predates COH by some time, and I don't recall ever seeing any kind of explanation for changes in a patchlog.

And it's not like people didn't want to know. Am I the only one who remembers the sheer volume of posts complaining about Chaos's play mechanics back after WA's release, when CSM lost basically every single upgrade that made them even remotely useful?

I can't possibly be the only one who recalls how many people were pissed at the "downgrade" of the Power Sword upgrade from WA, a huge mechanical mistake which, an entire expansion and 2 patches later, we are still feeling repercussions from.

Similarly, I don't think anyone from the WA era has forgotten the veritable firestorm of posts that brewed after patches came out, and similarly, I don't recall an explanation for why these changes were implemented in the first place.

The argument that the COH forum was the progenitor of why we don't have patchlogs is a good theory for why we don't have one from this patch. But it doesn't explain the veritable arsenal of changes no one except the patchmakers/expansion producers understand that began around the time of WA.

And it's not information that we can exactly do a terrible lot without other than mercilessly theorycraft. And considering that the patchmakers will gleefully ignore things that are discussed here if we don't have something to go on, that's totally insane. It's information we should have, and the fact that as a balance forum we're not so much as even thrown a bone is completely bogus.

[Slow_Runner]

OK. I go away for a vacation and this thread gets turned from "please give feedback on the Relicnews Balance Issues subforum" into "Relic give us explained-in-detail changelogs now"? What the heck guys?

We're forums moderators, not Relic balance team or Relic/THQ PR department. We can't give you stuff like that and requesting them in this thread is beyond pointless. Would I like a Relic hotline? The whole balance team commenting here on everything? Sure. But there's nothing I or the rest of the forum staff can really do about it.

Now, since there hasn't been much on-topic discussion here in several weeks, I'll take it as a sign of people having said what they had to say about Balance Issues and close the thread.