UNAC Power Rankings Discussion
- Thread starter Rhade
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
RobertBruce
Sergeant
Boobily Bear speaks the truth! Even if it comes out in confusing ways 
I spent some time considering both Balion and BkS for 4th spot, but I'd prefer to not base my ranking on single matches. Balion had a rough night against BkS (I don't remember ever being team hit/killed so many times in a competitive match) and IMO will only go up from there. Admittedly, any competitive match is fair game in determining a team's abilities and "power", and Balion's performance against BkS was none-too impressive, but I try to think of potential and where I think teams are headed at the same time. Also worth considering that Balion beat TMW, TMW beat BkS, then BkS beat Balion, as well as Balion's better tournament record of 4-1.Rhade said:
I may be a bit confused by this whole power ranking thing. Might as well copy/paste the tournament ranking, then?
I digress, I suppose the performance per week is part of it, but there are two weeks between my week 4 and 6 rankings and based on both I'd still have Balion sitting slightly above BkS.
I digress, I suppose the performance per week is part of it, but there are two weeks between my week 4 and 6 rankings and based on both I'd still have Balion sitting slightly above BkS.
I'm never opening another spoiler.
Mok the International
Banned
Z3ro said:huh?Mad Dawg said:I'm never opening another spoiler.
Mr.X
ClockWise said:I'm afraid to BEAT YOU TOO BADLY BECAUSE I HAVE SOME SMALL SYMPATHY FORYOU SCUMCRADOC.
gottem
T
Sergeant
I knew I should have posted this before that thread got locked, but Calamity said to put it here so...
Please read the whole thing, I promise I am not mean to anyone. Seriously though, I am just trying to point out why the "new" stuff that BkS and others criticize is actually bad for Warband. If you actually are interested in the game and not who is better than who, then go with on this one because I really think I am right when it comes to why the following things are bad for the game...
@Gelden
The difference between the "new" and "old" meta is that the new is very much based on taking advantage of the broken elements I describe below. While the old simply drew a line and ignored them.
@Clock
This is the difference I see between BkS and most other clans. We drew the line between what was intended and not intended to be in the game (with the exception of helms, that is just our thing). All the other active clans I can think of take advantage of the following things except bks. You might be saying, so who are you to "draw the line"? I think the line is obvious when ppl start to exploit the game out of what it was initially intended to be.
Here are only a few examples of the difference makers between what has been designated as "old" and "new" meta. I used the ones X challenged Rhade to address...I say what makes them bad at the end.
Range:
1. The way range is the crux of combat (dictates the fight, something niether cav or inf can rarely do depending on the map) is a direct result of range being pretty broken competitively as a class in this game. There was recently a patch to address somethings, but it largely remained the same.
So when ppl say crossfires and kiting are bad things, they are looking at it from a class fairness perspective.
2. Competitive games reward fast or coordinated movement. While Warband in its current state rewards more for less movement. This is directly a result of range setting the pace/place of the fight. A friend of mine watched a scrim recently, he thought it was cool but then said, "but it is no fun to watch, everyone was just standing around until the end..." Truly competitive games are fun to watch...old Warband was fun to watch.
3. As implied by the last two points, range should not be the pace setter/strongest class in a melee based game.
4. Even after the patch, range double as infantry. Which is a serious flaw in a class based game. That is my problem with "drops" yes they are a clever tactic and I have no problem with jav drops for inf or any drop that means giving a class a weapon they can or should be able to "buy". The problem with archer drops is that it always includes giving them a weapon the class is not meant to use. It is clever, but it is also a game flaw which ruins competitive games. The devs did address one drop that would be super popular today, and that is a "horse drop". Inf and archers are not supposed to be cav, so they restricted it. I think to make the game more balanced, things such as shields, pikes, certain swords should be restricted to range like horses are...
Heavy Horses:
Like range, there are several inherent flaws with HH. They were tacked on at the end of beta with no testing. So they are not a very balanced class, which was also slightly addressed in the recent patch but not nearly enough.
1. They have far to much armor in comparison to damage output (10-15 spear stabs to kill vs 5 for hunter) Massive glance potential. I realize that is because they are HEAVY cav...but read #2
2. Little to no drawbacks compared to other horses. Meaning, there is no real distinction or reason to go "light" cav. Only reason you even see coursers today is b/c some clans (maybe only bks?) refuse to use HH. This proves a balance problem...in a truly competitive environment there is are drawbacks and bonuses to different equipment. There should never case where there is no reason to go anything else. (With the exception of sarra cav, that does have a distinct advantage despite its frailty)
Risks:
1. I think some people are misunderstanding what people say when they talk about risks in Warband. Risk should never be "THE META", there is a reason it is called risk...it should be dangerous. The problem with Warband is that there is not enough incentive for movement or aggression. The biggest culprit for this is the gamemode. Battle/MOTF is not particularly well suited for competitive play.
2. Likewise many maps are quite simply not good competitive maps, they were not made with competition in mind or they were made by a player/amateur map maker.
3. Lack of movement is a glaring flaw in Warband. Yes, there is some "movement" but it is almost always a mad dash to one spot that is defensible and will set you up well for MOTF.
4. Part of the reason range is so dangerous in this game is that there is so little movement, so the play is based of of getting range kills while waiting for MOTF.
5. No one can tell me that the game is not 100% based on MOTF now...it didnt used to be that way, it slowly devolved into the wait for motf. MOTF "forces" a team to move, why would you need that if there was an incentive to move?? That is, imo, the biggest problem with warband. Hopefully, Harn hasnt given up on his mod.
The reason all of these are "BAD" is because they all purposefully detract from the melee-ness of what is supposed to be a melee combat game not a shooter. The melee is the hard part of this game because it is dangerous. The game is built to be around melee.
These points are problems b/c they take away from the danger that was meant to be in the game. HH bumps, archers being infantry, other balance things etc...
Are they legal/clever?Sure for now, and I realize they are proper utilization of things that make it easier to beat your opponent, that makes sense BUT not when it oversteps what was meant to be bounds in the game.
Please read the whole thing, I promise I am not mean to anyone. Seriously though, I am just trying to point out why the "new" stuff that BkS and others criticize is actually bad for Warband. If you actually are interested in the game and not who is better than who, then go with on this one because I really think I am right when it comes to why the following things are bad for the game...
I will do my best.Mr.X said:
@Gelden
The difference between the "new" and "old" meta is that the new is very much based on taking advantage of the broken elements I describe below. While the old simply drew a line and ignored them.
@Clock
This is the difference I see between BkS and most other clans. We drew the line between what was intended and not intended to be in the game (with the exception of helms, that is just our thing). All the other active clans I can think of take advantage of the following things except bks. You might be saying, so who are you to "draw the line"? I think the line is obvious when ppl start to exploit the game out of what it was initially intended to be.
Here are only a few examples of the difference makers between what has been designated as "old" and "new" meta. I used the ones X challenged Rhade to address...I say what makes them bad at the end.
Range:
1. The way range is the crux of combat (dictates the fight, something niether cav or inf can rarely do depending on the map) is a direct result of range being pretty broken competitively as a class in this game. There was recently a patch to address somethings, but it largely remained the same.
So when ppl say crossfires and kiting are bad things, they are looking at it from a class fairness perspective.
2. Competitive games reward fast or coordinated movement. While Warband in its current state rewards more for less movement. This is directly a result of range setting the pace/place of the fight. A friend of mine watched a scrim recently, he thought it was cool but then said, "but it is no fun to watch, everyone was just standing around until the end..." Truly competitive games are fun to watch...old Warband was fun to watch.
3. As implied by the last two points, range should not be the pace setter/strongest class in a melee based game.
4. Even after the patch, range double as infantry. Which is a serious flaw in a class based game. That is my problem with "drops" yes they are a clever tactic and I have no problem with jav drops for inf or any drop that means giving a class a weapon they can or should be able to "buy". The problem with archer drops is that it always includes giving them a weapon the class is not meant to use. It is clever, but it is also a game flaw which ruins competitive games. The devs did address one drop that would be super popular today, and that is a "horse drop". Inf and archers are not supposed to be cav, so they restricted it. I think to make the game more balanced, things such as shields, pikes, certain swords should be restricted to range like horses are...
Heavy Horses:
Like range, there are several inherent flaws with HH. They were tacked on at the end of beta with no testing. So they are not a very balanced class, which was also slightly addressed in the recent patch but not nearly enough.
1. They have far to much armor in comparison to damage output (10-15 spear stabs to kill vs 5 for hunter) Massive glance potential. I realize that is because they are HEAVY cav...but read #2
2. Little to no drawbacks compared to other horses. Meaning, there is no real distinction or reason to go "light" cav. Only reason you even see coursers today is b/c some clans (maybe only bks?) refuse to use HH. This proves a balance problem...in a truly competitive environment there is are drawbacks and bonuses to different equipment. There should never case where there is no reason to go anything else. (With the exception of sarra cav, that does have a distinct advantage despite its frailty)
Risks:
1. I think some people are misunderstanding what people say when they talk about risks in Warband. Risk should never be "THE META", there is a reason it is called risk...it should be dangerous. The problem with Warband is that there is not enough incentive for movement or aggression. The biggest culprit for this is the gamemode. Battle/MOTF is not particularly well suited for competitive play.
2. Likewise many maps are quite simply not good competitive maps, they were not made with competition in mind or they were made by a player/amateur map maker.
3. Lack of movement is a glaring flaw in Warband. Yes, there is some "movement" but it is almost always a mad dash to one spot that is defensible and will set you up well for MOTF.
4. Part of the reason range is so dangerous in this game is that there is so little movement, so the play is based of of getting range kills while waiting for MOTF.
5. No one can tell me that the game is not 100% based on MOTF now...it didnt used to be that way, it slowly devolved into the wait for motf. MOTF "forces" a team to move, why would you need that if there was an incentive to move?? That is, imo, the biggest problem with warband. Hopefully, Harn hasnt given up on his mod.
The reason all of these are "BAD" is because they all purposefully detract from the melee-ness of what is supposed to be a melee combat game not a shooter. The melee is the hard part of this game because it is dangerous. The game is built to be around melee.
These points are problems b/c they take away from the danger that was meant to be in the game. HH bumps, archers being infantry, other balance things etc...
Are they legal/clever?Sure for now, and I realize they are proper utilization of things that make it easier to beat your opponent, that makes sense BUT not when it oversteps what was meant to be bounds in the game.
Mr.X
^I appreciate the BkS post without porno X rage in it.
My biggest problem with the idea behind your post is that I don't think you determining that heavy cav is imbalanced is a good reason not to use it. As you said, ranged is pretty unbalanced even without shields, so why doesn't the same logic apply and why don't you not use ranged? I just don't think players can really determine if obviously intended game mechanics, like weapon pick ups and heavy horses, are against the idea behind the game. To be quite honest, not using clearly intended game mechanics to gain an advantage because of some moral ideal is a very anti-competitive idea.
I hope none of that comes off as an attack against BkS or Tyrain.
It's very difficult for me to accept that heavy horses break the bounds of what was intended in the game. They would be more balanced if we used 1k gold, but that's another discussion :p
My biggest problem with the idea behind your post is that I don't think you determining that heavy cav is imbalanced is a good reason not to use it. As you said, ranged is pretty unbalanced even without shields, so why doesn't the same logic apply and why don't you not use ranged? I just don't think players can really determine if obviously intended game mechanics, like weapon pick ups and heavy horses, are against the idea behind the game. To be quite honest, not using clearly intended game mechanics to gain an advantage because of some moral ideal is a very anti-competitive idea.
I hope none of that comes off as an attack against BkS or Tyrain.
It's very difficult for me to accept that heavy horses break the bounds of what was intended in the game. They would be more balanced if we used 1k gold, but that's another discussion :p
