Well no, given as its written text and picking up anything is difficult.CarsandCameras wrote:I comprehend your idiom just fine, but it seems you don't pick up dry humor when you see it. Don't you worry though, I might be needing a wig soon enough.Sadder Joker wrote:Idioms are lost on you and your head of hair. I apologise then, for interpreting your writing style as angry, and getting you confused with the previous responded RE playstyle. If my posts are confusing I will clarify - however, I believe you're just engaging in semantics and I’m not sure why.CarsandCameras wrote:
However, do you see the irony in what you are saying? What I listed aren't "things dislike", they're problems with the game. According to.. you? According to 34 players? 80? Everyone? I’ve written this before somewhere, we should listen to statistics and consensus, not who shouts loudest - if the data says air is OP, supported by opinion (of which we are limited to the forum player base, not the wider game’s population) then I believe it to be OP. If the data, and the players, say the opposite, then I believe that too.
You don’t do yourself any favours by the fact you immediately assumed I was disagreeing with you regarding air and expansions. I wasn’t, I was asking for an explanation that Joker provided. In addition, when did I say that an infantry ball would not beat air?
You believe there is nothing to fix, and that’s fine. The first three people have all disagreed with my suggestion, and that’s fine too. I think balancing this game is a team effort!
I'm arguing semantics because we need to be on the same page. The terms you're using need to be distinguished. People of equal skill can have different playstyles. However, it can be confusing if you use the term as a euphemism for someone who is at a lower level of play than others.
The issues I listed are problems with the game according to the high level community. People who are more or less good at the game. The good kids. No other consensus matters. Balancing the game around low or even mid level players will result in a game that no one will want to stick with for the coming years. Everyone gets better with time. So balance the game at the highest possible level. It's quite literally the only method that makes a lick of sense. If you want data, don't bother factoring in the opinions of those who have been stuck in Gold III the entire season. In fact, if you really want to be empirical I would suggest you survey how many Onyx and below players think Air is OP and then compare it to the amount of Champion players who think Air is OP. You will find the difference in ratios to be surprising.
Both might be flawed methods of argumentation, but an appeal to authority is a helluva lot more persuasive than an appeal to the majority.
In regards to air securing expansions, I don't see how I didn't provide an answer. Here, I'll even let you watch why they can't secure expansions.
I see your point regarding understanding terminology, I'm just going to let that one go.
We will just have to disagree on which player group this game is balanced to. Ive had the discussion before.
In my opinion, the "authority" of which you speak is the data and statistics collected. Believe me, I would survey all the players if I could.
I never said air could secure expansions, that was your assumption. And then you wrote about infantry?
And Serena, with her ability to slow everything down and therefore not catch the air, or return fire. That’s 4 leaders – no small amount.Mr BluDawn wrote:Decimus and Kinsano and Arbiter are what make air seem so broken.Mr BluDawn wrote:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the argument around air due primarily to the quantity of units fielded?
I think (?) everyone agrees that once air becomes a critical mass blob, it is very hard to defeat - they can quickly direct fire to you 6-8 supporting AA units and then wreck your remaining forces, or skirt around your army, direct fire your turrets and then ruin your base.
So why not decrease the number available and get rid of this argument of “you shouldn’t let it happen”. For example, you shouldn’t let your opponent build an entire pop of condors, but it happens - and when it does, it can be countered.
(Before you link me to any videos, please ensure they have a bit of scientific integrity.)
If you had to think more carefully about your smaller number of air units, I think it would only be beneficial to the strategy side of the game.
1) you could still pump them out early to combat hog rushes (no cost change/ time to build)
2) you could still use them against unsupported Kodiak batteries/ siege turrets
3) you could support them with cyclops/hunters to remove the aa threat - and then push in with the hornets to remove tougher vehicle threats.
4) mix in AI to remove that threat to air and then push on the vehicles with you air units
I just feel air, with leader powers, is too good at steamrolling the map, whilst everything else is in a pretty good place now in terms of strengths/ weaknesses.
edit: changed a few thoughts!
If people are fighting mass air its always one of those leaders and its usually Decimus.
Honestly we generally do say just get good because AA is fine and still does its jobs.
Last night I chased an army of Hornets with litteraly 4 Reavers and killed over half of them
Their are many mini videos showing that air isn't broken at all by TheWall and his friends, I suggest you look at them to get a better idea of the situation.
Addition: The Issue with the Hog rush wasn't solved by making Hogs 4 pop, It was solved by making AV not lose to T2 Vehicles and having tanks actually shred them now.
Which game was that? Ill check it out on your service history.
Thanks for the clarification RE hogs. If that’s the case though, why bother increasing the pop?
Regarding videos in both cases, please see the first post here:
Cars, for your video, I very very rarely see an air force rolling without a heal/ detector unit. There was no LP involed, it was 1 v 1, and a small skirmish. This issue with air is, usually, a very large mixed army, in 3 v 3.