PDA

View Full Version : Platinum and above is to wide



Illyrian_King
11-23-2018, 02:09 PM
Talking about the State Of Balance S7 ...

"Platinum and above" includes the top 30%, instead of 2,5%
This is completely useless, since it includes the average occassional gamers and no where near competitive. If you went with just Grandmaster and Master, then you wouldn't get enough data for some Heroes, as you said yesterday on the Stream.

It's because people don't play certain Heroes in Master and Grandmaster, because they are not viable. That's the actualy State Of Balance, and the shown data is not representative.

Ubi-Jimothy
11-23-2018, 04:14 PM
Hey Illyrian_King,

We actually decided to go for a broader group this time because people were suggesting that the top 2.5% wasn't accurate enough for their liking. What would you suggest we do for future State of Balance matrices?

Siegfried-Z
11-23-2018, 04:22 PM
Hey Illyrian_King,

We actually decided to go for a broader group this time because people were suggesting that the top 2.5% wasn't accurate enough for their liking. What would you suggest we do for future State of Balance matrices?

In my opinion the fact you take a bigger bracket is a good thing.

Top players issues are not the same that the playerbase overall.

Of course changes don't have to be made based on Beginners feedback But top 30% is such like looking at Correct level to best players which look interesting.

MuscleTech12018
11-23-2018, 04:28 PM
Lol dude, they don't care, as long as you dont pay like the pro gamers, you`re not included in any statistics.

Goat_of_Vermund
11-23-2018, 04:36 PM
If you have the full stat, you could release different versions. If you have no data about certain characters at top level however, that is data itself. That is a character that would have been torn apart at the top.
You should also monitor pick rate overall. Heroes with insanely low pick rate are either useless, ugly or boring. For example, I see a lot more pks recently, mostly because the face reveal.

Illyrian_King
11-23-2018, 08:55 PM
Hey Illyrian_King,

We actually decided to go for a broader group this time because people were suggesting that the top 2.5% wasn't accurate enough for their liking. What would you suggest we do for future State of Balance matrices?

The very lowest should be Diamond 5.

You can not balance the game around newcomers, or we go right back to the defensive meta. Aramusha is a good example, as the approach to satisfy both audiences didn't work out.



In my opinion the fact you take a bigger bracket is a good thing.

Top players issues are not the same that the playerbase overall.

Of course changes don't have to be made based on Beginners feedback But top 30% is such like looking at Correct level to best players which look interesting.

Platin players of these 30% still complain about stuff like light spam and bashes. How can a sane person take such opinions into consideration, when designing/shaping a game that is supposed to have a very high skill ceiling?

Again: Aramusha was an attepmt and it didn't work out. He is more crippled then ever before.



If you have the full stat, you could release different versions. If you have no data about certain characters at top level however, that is data itself. That is a character that would have been torn apart at the top.
You should also monitor pick rate overall. Heroes with insanely low pick rate are either useless, ugly or boring. For example, I see a lot more pks recently, mostly because the face reveal.

That is exactly my mind. There is a good reason, why certain Heroes are not used in top tier.

PK still is not bad, but mediocore. Her attacks are very viable, but the damage output is lowered, which is good. Now she needs more skill to play, which jerked off quiet some amount of noobs.

NHLGoldenKnight
11-23-2018, 11:16 PM
Disagree. Balancing game around 2.5% was what caused all issues in the first place. You want to create a game for 100 players or for thousands of players?

Problem with 2.5% is way too small sample size. How many of them played certain heroes? How many matches each hero has to have by top 2.5% in order to be included in matrix?

There is a lot of variables here and I don't think usual way worked well. I am not saying that new one is better but by taking into account experience of 30% of players instead of 2.5 gives back much more info and useful data.

Siegfried-Z
11-24-2018, 12:06 AM
Platin players of these 30% still complain about stuff like light spam and bashes. How can a sane person take such opinions into consideration, when designing/shaping a game that is supposed to have a very high skill ceiling?

Again: Aramusha was an attepmt and it didn't work out. He is more crippled then ever before.

How do you know it ? You Simply cant.
Bash complain ? The only bash often criticized are SB from Warden and Conq. Any top 1% players would confirm they are strong tools .

Spam.. Well first it is important to split things. For example even at good level spam is annoying on console .
I am most of times between top of Diamond and low Master and i've spend lot of time in the game but playing on console in a causal way (without pro controller and monitor) dont allow me To not have troubles with a spammy Roch or Tiandi sometimes.

Who care about how feels the top 1% players ?

As for beginners.

But 30% is good. Because it remoove beginners and average players and look at the entire "decent" playerbase from correct to Úlite as i said.


Disagree. Balancing game around 2.5% was what caused all issues in the first place. You want to create a game for 100 players or for thousands of players?

Problem with 2.5% is way too small sample size. How many of them played certain heroes? How many matches each hero has to have by top 2.5% in order to be included in matrix?

There is a lot of variables here and I don't think usual way worked well. I am not saying that new one is better but by taking into account experience of 30% of players instead of 2.5 gives back much more info and useful data.

Exactly 👌

The_B0G_
11-24-2018, 12:20 AM
Technical issues aside, generally speaking I think the game is balanced a tad bit too fast for console. It doesn't feel like there's much skill needed to hammer out all these attacks that can't be reacted to, almost everything defensively is guess work, any attack that can be reacted to is always feinted. It doesn't make a fun meta, I'd rather the turtle meta than this tbh.

Illyrian_King
11-24-2018, 01:07 AM
Disagree. Balancing game around 2.5% was what caused all issues in the first place. You want to create a game for 100 players or for thousands of players?

Problem with 2.5% is way too small sample size. How many of them played certain heroes? How many matches each hero has to have by top 2.5% in order to be included in matrix?

There is a lot of variables here and I don't think usual way worked well. I am not saying that new one is better but by taking into account experience of 30% of players instead of 2.5 gives back much more info and useful data.

I think you don't understand the situation. If you balance the game around casual/average/occasional players, then you need to tune things down, in order to keep it more or less okay-ish "reactable" for the average dude's reflexes. What if you raise above this average level and your opponent too? You get straight back to the days of the defensive meta, which was the worst of all metas.

You set the skill ceiling pretty low and there is no above. The only thing I could think of, is to reduce the light damage a bit.

Aramusha is the perfect example for adjustments towards new players. He is more useless then he was, since he has even less access to get his increased damage in now. This Hero is garbage.

Players can increase their skill and reflexes, but if the cap is low, then the game ends there, and for whom are you creating the game now?



How do you know it ? You Simply cant.
Bash complain ? The only bash often criticized are SB from Warden and Conq. Any top 1% players would confirm they are strong tools .

Spam.. Well first it is important to split things. For example even at good level spam is annoying on console .
I am most of times between top of Diamond and low Master and i've spend lot of time in the game but playing on console in a causal way (without pro controller and monitor) dont allow me To not have troubles with a spammy Roch or Tiandi sometimes.

Who care about how feels the top 1% players ?

As for beginners.

But 30% is good. Because it remoove beginners and average players and look at the entire "decent" playerbase from correct to Úlite as i said.

Platin is not "decent" ... no way near even. It's the definition of average. Even with Lawbringer I win duells in ranked Platin, what already tells everything you need to know.
Diamond is decent.

No company in the world balances around the casual player. The skill ceiling should be as high as possible, so players can always grow bigger and that motivates. The devs also aim for the competitve scene.

Also the balance is not around the best 1% as you said, but around the top 10-15%, which is quiet fair and alike every other game out on the market. No black sheep at all.

The next big thing on which plattform you play. On PC things are different and not just because of fps.

This is off-topic, but you will see this 30/60 fps thing be fixed in a year, when PS5 and XBox2 (or whatever they will call it) come out, since 60fps already confirmed on both, and Ubi won't miss the opportunity to jump on.



Technical issues aside, generally speaking I think the game is balanced a tad bit too fast for console. It doesn't feel like there's much skill needed to hammer out all these attacks that can't be reacted to, almost everything defensively is guess work, any attack that can be reacted to is always feinted. It doesn't make a fun meta, I'd rather the turtle meta than this tbh.

On PC it is really not bad. I also fail a lot to catch 400ms lights, especially when I am with my mind elsewhere. It is still reactable to a certain extent, but it is hard. Guess this is intended and I am also not a pro. I do not feel cheated at all.

I can just repeat it with the next gen consoles ... it's a crappy answer, I know. But that's how it will be.

Knight_Raime
11-24-2018, 01:30 AM
Disagree. Balancing game around 2.5% was what caused all issues in the first place. You want to create a game for 100 players or for thousands of players?

Problem with 2.5% is way too small sample size. How many of them played certain heroes? How many matches each hero has to have by top 2.5% in order to be included in matrix?

There is a lot of variables here and I don't think usual way worked well. I am not saying that new one is better but by taking into account experience of 30% of players instead of 2.5 gives back much more info and useful data.


Even if only 100 players played in that percentage they could probably play any of the people in the roster better than a majority of the people who play this game.
No. All widening the pool does is delute the data. ****ing aramusha got in second place because of this. Even though he's factually a bad kit. That's proof right there that widening was NOT the way to go.

Knight_Raime
11-24-2018, 01:34 AM
Hey Illyrian_King,

We actually decided to go for a broader group this time because people were suggesting that the top 2.5% wasn't accurate enough for their liking. What would you suggest we do for future State of Balance matrices?

Not blaming you or anything but the people complaining about the top 2.5% not being accurate were specifically stating because the pool is too wide at 2.5%
The only legitimate reason they did this is because they swapped their pool to ranked. Because they believe people play ranked more seriously and since ranked is not a "casual friendly" style of play they thought the pool of players would be more accurate. This is more or less stated in their blog post.

It's all fine and dandy if they want to pull from ranked instead. But the % still needs to be the top 1% if they're planning on using the data for any balance changing. The chart released clearly shows pulling from the top 30% was the wrong idea. Kits like Aramusha's is falsely represented. None of the heros he has over a 50% win rate against in that chart are match ups in his favor. And warlord was bottom of the group despite being one of the stronger heros because of the pressure from headbutt and crashing charge mix ups. Neither of which are used smartly or at all by most warlord characters.

This clearly shows a mis representation of data. It was the wrong move. And the devs need to switch their pool if they want any degree of accuracy.

DefiledDragon
11-24-2018, 01:36 AM
I think you don't understand the situation. If you balance the game around casual/average/occasional players, then you need to tune things down, in order to keep it more or less okay-ish "reactable" for the average dude's reflexes. What if you raise above this average level and your opponent too? You get straight back to the days of the defensive meta, which was the worst of all metas.

You set the skill ceiling pretty low and there is no above. The only thing I could think of, is to reduce the light damage a bit.

Aramusha is the perfect example for adjustments towards new players. He is more useless then he was, since he has even less access to get his increased damage in now. This Hero is garbage.

Players can increase their skill and reflexes, but if the cap is low, then the game ends there, and for whom are you creating the game now?




Platin is not "decent" ... no way near even. It's the definition of average. Even with Lawbringer I win duells in ranked Platin, what already tells everything you need to know.
Diamond is decent.

No company in the world balances around the casual player. The skill ceiling should be as high as possible, so players can always grow bigger and that motivates. The devs also aim for the competitve scene.

Also the balance is not around the best 1% as you said, but around the top 10-15%, which is quiet fair and alike every other game out on the market. No black sheep at all.

The next big thing on which plattform you play. On PC things are different and not just because of fps.

This is off-topic, but you will see this 30/60 fps thing be fixed in a year, when PS5 and XBox2 (or whatever they will call it) come out, since 60fps already confirmed on both, and Ubi won't miss the opportunity to jump on.




On PC it is really not bad. I also fail a lot to catch 400ms lights, especially when I am with my mind elsewhere. It is still reactable to a certain extent, but it is hard. Guess this is intended and I am also not a pro. I do not feel cheated at all.

I can just repeat it with the next gen consoles ... it's a crappy answer, I know. But that's how it will be.

The trouble is that reflexes aren't something you can improve with practice or a deeper understanding of the game. In most other fighting games, all standard ground attacks are "unreactable", heavy, medium or light, so everybody is on a level playing field from the get go, regardless of your pick. Characters have other strengths and weaknesses that differentiate them and require a different approach to both using them and facing them, but a higher skilled player will stand out among a crowd of similarly but lower skilled players. Not because they're wired and have better reflexes, but because they have a solid grasp of the fundamentals, they know how and when to defend and they know how and when to attack or counter and they have a deeper understanding of the game and each characters strengths and weaknesses. This isn't the case in FH. It's becoming a game of reflexes and guesswork. I personally don't like the direction they're taking with it and the designers idea for the future of this game doesn't interest me. I would like to see fights increase in pace, but that doesn't necessarily translate to ever faster attacks.

The game will become a button mashers wet dream if they don't reign in their overt fondness for ever faster openers and actually start looking at the fundamental issues with the game and I don't believe they will.

Siegfried-Z
11-24-2018, 11:13 AM
I think you don't understand the situation. If you balance the game around casual/average/occasional players, then you need to tune things down, in order to keep it more or less okay-ish "reactable" for the average dude's reflexes. What if you raise above this average level and your opponent too? You get straight back to the days of the defensive meta, which was the worst of all metas.

You set the skill ceiling pretty low and there is no above. The only thing I could think of, is to reduce the light damage a bit.

Aramusha is the perfect example for adjustments towards new players. He is more useless then he was, since he has even less access to get his increased damage in now. This Hero is garbage.

Players can increase their skill and reflexes, but if the cap is low, then the game ends there, and for whom are you creating the game now?




Platin is not "decent" ... no way near even. It's the definition of average. Even with Lawbringer I win duells in ranked Platin, what already tells everything you need to know.
Diamond is decent.

No company in the world balances around the casual player. The skill ceiling should be as high as possible, so players can always grow bigger and that motivates. The devs also aim for the competitve scene.

Also the balance is not around the best 1% as you said, but around the top 10-15%, which is quiet fair and alike every other game out on the market. No black sheep at all.

The next big thing on which plattform you play. On PC things are different and not just because of fps.

This is off-topic, but you will see this 30/60 fps thing be fixed in a year, when PS5 and XBox2 (or whatever they will call it) come out, since 60fps already confirmed on both, and Ubi won't miss the opportunity to jump on.




On PC it is really not bad. I also fail a lot to catch 400ms lights, especially when I am with my mind elsewhere. It is still reactable to a certain extent, but it is hard. Guess this is intended and I am also not a pro. I do not feel cheated at all.

I can just repeat it with the next gen consoles ... it's a crappy answer, I know. But that's how it will be.

Ok, but 2 things.

1: of course i would like the game as skill as possible .
But look at the direction they are doing it. Are 400ms attacks from neutral or in chain skills ?? No. I would rather face a warden and his SB mix up.
Reflex is not a things you can become 2 times better .. what you can improve is your understanding the game mechanics, of all stregnhts and weaknesses char and on your strategy and mix up.

Making lot of things faster is not a skill promotion, it is noobs fitting . Why ? Because any Bronze players can just pick Roch or Tiandi and feel like he is good...
My brother is rep 15 only and at this bracket i've look at him playing . . Only Roch everywhere .

You said 10-15% top players for the balance is fine Well yes but i am in these and i really dislike this spammy meta. We need more mix up, more specific mooves To open.
But not at all more 400ms mooves.
450ms should the fastest attack in the game.

2: i'm waiting this Ps5 believe me 😅

Illyrian_King
11-24-2018, 02:54 PM
Ok, but 2 things.

1: of course i would like the game as skill as possible .
But look at the direction they are doing it. Are 400ms attacks from neutral or in chain skills ?? No. I would rather face a warden and his SB mix up.
Reflex is not a things you can become 2 times better .. what you can improve is your understanding the game mechanics, of all stregnhts and weaknesses char and on your strategy and mix up.

Making lot of things faster is not a skill promotion, it is noobs fitting . Why ? Because any Bronze players can just pick Roch or Tiandi and feel like he is good...
My brother is rep 15 only and at this bracket i've look at him playing . . Only Roch everywhere .

You said 10-15% top players for the balance is fine Well yes but i am in these and i really dislike this spammy meta. We need more mix up, more specific mooves To open.
But not at all more 400ms mooves.
450ms should the fastest attack in the game.

2: i'm waiting this Ps5 believe me 😅

1: That's why I really think that blockable but unparriable heavy neutral and chained attacks would be the right way to go for slow Heroes like Lawbringer, Raider, Shugoki.
Not light attacks but just heavies.

They could attack in their slow pace without fear of being parried all the time. All this speed up process is still going further, just to go around parries more easy.

Why not simply make some attacks parry immune, instead of creating spam?

The devs answered my suggestion with "They don't want to create a new category of attacks (what's Nuxia's trap then?) to make it not more complicated, eventhough Stefan Jewinsky admitted, that chipping the enemy with block damage would be nice. Instead he said that bashes would do the same."

2: I feel for you guys ^^

UbiInsulin
11-24-2018, 09:00 PM
Disagree. Balancing game around 2.5% was what caused all issues in the first place. You want to create a game for 100 players or for thousands of players?

Problem with 2.5% is way too small sample size. How many of them played certain heroes? How many matches each hero has to have by top 2.5% in order to be included in matrix?

There is a lot of variables here and I don't think usual way worked well. I am not saying that new one is better but by taking into account experience of 30% of players instead of 2.5 gives back much more info and useful data.

The team doesn't make balance decisions around one set of data, just to be clear. We're mainly talking about a graphic shown on the Warrior's Den/State of Balance blog. Whether this particular graphic/data set is useful for understanding FH balance is the question.

They look at different skill levels and platforms in terms of data, plus what they hear from the community (i.e. the community-created tier lists shown on the Warrior's Den for comparison to the data).

CRIMS0NM0NKEY
11-25-2018, 05:39 AM
I'm glad they opened up the data to a larger player base. It was a smart decision. The game is suffering right now because of only pleasing the top players and making the game competitive instead of fun to which they will start losing their majority player base. Slowing light spam will help compensate for latency and unparriable heavies for heavy classes would let turtles take less risk. I understand ubi is walking a tight rope on this but they have listened to the majority. I don't care if for honor is ever competitive because who will watch it if the majority don't care about the "sport". Nobody. If superskilled players can't deal with it then they obviously should find another game to ruin and leave for honor as a fun game to play for the majority.

Knight_Raime
11-25-2018, 09:49 PM
@CRIMS0NM0NKEY

I'm afraid you don't understand.

"I'm glad they opened up the data to a larger player base. It was a smart decision"

By their own admission they wanted to do Master and Grand master ranks only. But they had to widen the pool down to platinum because not enough players play ranked for them to grab the amount of data they think is good enough. They didn't open the data to 30% of ranked players to get a more accurate read. It was a compromise for the fact that they wanted to use ranked only as the statistic they're pulling from for duels. They should have just not made the switch if they had to compromise on the data. Because the data we're being shown with this pool helps no one.

"The game is suffering right now because of only pleasing the top players."

And that's where you make your biggest mistake in this whole post. For honor has always been suffering for various issues. It's subjective on what's caused the game more strife. Further more this game ISNT pleasing the top players. Do you know how many actual amazing players are left that participate in skrims and tournaments? 20. The majority of the competitive community at this point is built up from people who are in high tier or high mid tier who simply spent enough time in the enviornment to pick up on the knowledge of these top players. Just because we ask for unreactable things and openers doesn't mean we're actively enjoying how it's being added to the game. And I can bet you my house that they were not the only players who were complaining about the turtle meta. Pointing the finger gets no one no where.

"making the game competitive instead of fun to which they will start losing their majority player base."

This is another big problem with the community. There is a lot of us versus them mentality. I've said it before and i'll say it again. You can have a game that BOTH fosters a competitive community but is fun to play at a casual level. There are a plethera of games that do this. Do not blame your own members of the community because of the developers incompetence. Fun is subjective.

"Slowing light spam will help compensate for latency and unparriable heavies for heavy classes would let turtles take less risk."

You never balance for latency because latency between players is never the same across the board and has several factors that determine it. If light spam is made worse by connection the best they can do is give better lag comp. Or if they were REALLY wanting to create a new system again they could do what they did in soul calibur 6. Where the game is specifically designed to simulate lag in the training room so you can get used to what it's like fighting other players. And they already said no to the unparryable heavies because that just serves as chip damage. Which is what bashes are for. Not to mention on the slow heavies people would just side dodge and guard break you. Turtling involves more than just sitting still and blocking.

"I understand ubi is walking a tight rope on this but they have listened to the majority."

The majority of players do not go on the forums to talk about the game. That's always the minority. And you don't speak for the silent majority anymore than the competitive side does. And once again they didn't do this change because the casual side screamed for it. Literally no one has been happy with the data they've been showing. Both casual and competitive. 4v4 data is still just as useless as it has been. They need to actually explain all the variables for both lists so we can properly understand what's going on.

"I don't care if for honor is ever competitive because who will watch it if the majority don't care about the sport."

Just because a game has a competitive scene doesn't make it a sport. Nor does it mean it will be picked up by anyone as a sport and be casted. Having room for a competitive scene just means players who want more out of their game are capable of taking their skill, knowledge, and gameplay to another level.

"If superskilled players can't deal with it then they obviously should find another game to ruin and leave for honor as a fun game to play for the majority."

Again. The game can support both ways to play. And if anything would ever actually kill the game it's attitude like this. How would you like it if skilled players told your casual self to get good or quit? Exactly. neither side should be this toxic with the other side. And again don't presume your issues are how the silent majority feels.

The whole reason the competitive community is upset about this data is because it gives a false representation of high level play. The whole point of them doing the 2.5% of players was specifically so the devs can see what the game is like at the highest level's of play. Because sure, having the competitive players explain these things to you is helpful. But more ways to identify and confirm are not bad to have.

They were told that the 2.5% was not accurate enough because the pool was too wide. (this is what they were told by the competitive community.) So they decided to switch to ranked. Ranked is SUPPOSED to be played more seriously (but it's not for various reasons.) They believed this because they believed people would be bringing their best in ranked. That's not what happens though. Anyway, IF they only pulled from master and grandmaster (like they specifically state) they would have been looking at the top 1% Which should have been some what accurate on what the plight of the top tier play experiences.

This duel data is showing the top 30% of players. This is a false representation of what happens in high tier and top tier play. It does not. Because the leap from mid tier to high tier is a big one. And an even bigger jump from high tier to top tier. The point of the data being gathered here was NOT for balancing like you and many others seem to think. It was SPECIFICALLY meant to show what their changes that they've been making amount to AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF PLAY.

So not only does this data not show case that. But it's giving non informed players such as yourself a false idea that the top level players might be wrong about certain kits and their match ups. This data also does not help UBI either. They screwed up.

Siegfried-Z
11-26-2018, 10:16 AM
1: That's why I really think that blockable but unparriable heavy neutral and chained attacks would be the right way to go for slow Heroes like Lawbringer, Raider, Shugoki.
Not light attacks but just heavies.

They could attack in their slow pace without fear of being parried all the time. All this speed up process is still going further, just to go around parries more easy.

Why not simply make some attacks parry immune, instead of creating spam?

The devs answered my suggestion with "They don't want to create a new category of attacks (what's Nuxia's trap then?) to make it not more complicated, eventhough Stefan Jewinsky admitted, that chipping the enemy with block damage would be nice. Instead he said that bashes would do the same."

2: I feel for you guys ^^

Why not. Tbh honest i'm ok to try everything which could result in a light spam reduction ^^.

I think the team said they gonna try something new for Shugo. A new mech on his charged heavy to improve them and if it wiorks well they gonna do it for Cent too.

So lets see what it's gonna be !

CRIMS0NM0NKEY
11-27-2018, 02:01 AM
@CRIMS0NM0NKEY

I'm afraid you don't understand.

"I'm glad they opened up the data to a larger player base. It was a smart decision"

By their own admission they wanted to do Master and Grand master ranks only. But they had to widen the pool down to platinum because not enough players play ranked for them to grab the amount of data they think is good enough. They didn't open the data to 30% of ranked players to get a more accurate read. It was a compromise for the fact that they wanted to use ranked only as the statistic they're pulling from for duels. They should have just not made the switch if they had to compromise on the data. Because the data we're being shown with this pool helps no one.

"The game is suffering right now because of only pleasing the top players."

And that's where you make your biggest mistake in this whole post. For honor has always been suffering for various issues. It's subjective on what's caused the game more strife. Further more this game ISNT pleasing the top players. Do you know how many actual amazing players are left that participate in skrims and tournaments? 20. The majority of the competitive community at this point is built up from people who are in high tier or high mid tier who simply spent enough time in the enviornment to pick up on the knowledge of these top players. Just because we ask for unreactable things and openers doesn't mean we're actively enjoying how it's being added to the game. And I can bet you my house that they were not the only players who were complaining about the turtle meta. Pointing the finger gets no one no where.

"making the game competitive instead of fun to which they will start losing their majority player base."

This is another big problem with the community. There is a lot of us versus them mentality. I've said it before and i'll say it again. You can have a game that BOTH fosters a competitive community but is fun to play at a casual level. There are a plethera of games that do this. Do not blame your own members of the community because of the developers incompetence. Fun is subjective.

"Slowing light spam will help compensate for latency and unparriable heavies for heavy classes would let turtles take less risk."

You never balance for latency because latency between players is never the same across the board and has several factors that determine it. If light spam is made worse by connection the best they can do is give better lag comp. Or if they were REALLY wanting to create a new system again they could do what they did in soul calibur 6. Where the game is specifically designed to simulate lag in the training room so you can get used to what it's like fighting other players. And they already said no to the unparryable heavies because that just serves as chip damage. Which is what bashes are for. Not to mention on the slow heavies people would just side dodge and guard break you. Turtling involves more than just sitting still and blocking.

"I understand ubi is walking a tight rope on this but they have listened to the majority."

The majority of players do not go on the forums to talk about the game. That's always the minority. And you don't speak for the silent majority anymore than the competitive side does. And once again they didn't do this change because the casual side screamed for it. Literally no one has been happy with the data they've been showing. Both casual and competitive. 4v4 data is still just as useless as it has been. They need to actually explain all the variables for both lists so we can properly understand what's going on.

"I don't care if for honor is ever competitive because who will watch it if the majority don't care about the sport."

Just because a game has a competitive scene doesn't make it a sport. Nor does it mean it will be picked up by anyone as a sport and be casted. Having room for a competitive scene just means players who want more out of their game are capable of taking their skill, knowledge, and gameplay to another level.

"If superskilled players can't deal with it then they obviously should find another game to ruin and leave for honor as a fun game to play for the majority."

Again. The game can support both ways to play. And if anything would ever actually kill the game it's attitude like this. How would you like it if skilled players told your casual self to get good or quit? Exactly. neither side should be this toxic with the other side. And again don't presume your issues are how the silent majority feels.

The whole reason the competitive community is upset about this data is because it gives a false representation of high level play. The whole point of them doing the 2.5% of players was specifically so the devs can see what the game is like at the highest level's of play. Because sure, having the competitive players explain these things to you is helpful. But more ways to identify and confirm are not bad to have.

They were told that the 2.5% was not accurate enough because the pool was too wide. (this is what they were told by the competitive community.) So they decided to switch to ranked. Ranked is SUPPOSED to be played more seriously (but it's not for various reasons.) They believed this because they believed people would be bringing their best in ranked. That's not what happens though. Anyway, IF they only pulled from master and grandmaster (like they specifically state) they would have been looking at the top 1% Which should have been some what accurate on what the plight of the top tier play experiences.

This duel data is showing the top 30% of players. This is a false representation of what happens in high tier and top tier play. It does not. Because the leap from mid tier to high tier is a big one. And an even bigger jump from high tier to top tier. The point of the data being gathered here was NOT for balancing like you and many others seem to think. It was SPECIFICALLY meant to show what their changes that they've been making amount to AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF PLAY.

So not only does this data not show case that. But it's giving non informed players such as yourself a false idea that the top level players might be wrong about certain kits and their match ups. This data also does not help UBI either. They screwed up.

Hypocrisy and elitism could be construed as just as toxic. Im not going to out write you on a cell phone. Cheers.

Knight_Raime
11-27-2018, 04:38 AM
Hypocrisy and elitism could be construed as just as toxic. Im not going to out write you on a cell phone. Cheers.

Fair enough. Then at the very least please understand my final thoughts in the first post I quoted to you. Which I will summarize for you.

"The whole point of the data for duels and 4's as I see it is meant to show what their changes do at the highest level of play. This is seen with how they went from the top 2.5% in duels to trying to do the top 1% for ranked duels (only to having to open the pool to the top 30% of players because not enough people play ranked. But I digress.) To me this seems clear. So if they're trying to see what impact they make on the highest level of play then this data they've shown doesn't represent this. And is thus not useful for it's intended purpose."

I'm sure we both can agree that regardless of what the developers intentions are with the data they show us it's ultimately irrelevant and not helpful to any of the community because we lack the context and the details on what makes these statistics what they are. It's only telling us w/l in a broad term which is too vague. And that if we're going to move forward as a community the devs need to tell us/show us everything. Otherwise the data they pull together for us to see is ultimately irrelevant.