(as ud probably know - technological locks, upkeep, veterancy, ai difficulty and other campaign related circumstances would inevitably tilt the general player progressions)īut their blogpost suggests exactly that, that the data upon which some decisions (balance or meta) may hinge upon get extracted monolithically without further differentiation (or discrimination)
Total war rome remastered instant gaming full#
That might had hamstrung rome 2's post-release development slightly for the worse.īut i cant imagine any amount of analytics will ever give them the full picture either In case of rome ii, apart from the bugs i truly believe its poor player feedback like for example the anti-blobbing crowd but others as well I do understand the skepticism towards the fanbase regarding opinions on the meta game /balance decisions and thus rather reliance purely on numbers-driven intake as poor player feedback can ruin games and theres plenty of allegoric examples.
So even that top sample does not make a reliable src but still perhaps give a more accurate picture than parsing the entire spectrum indiscriminately! Which means there are only SOME on the top ladders who deserve their spot through fair competition (which btw tend be infested with exploiters and shenanigans (connection "loss" or count-down->draw kiters), idiots and bm cuz mp in proud tradition is a step-child feature) sp perhaps even moreso.Īll those data (which may include players who r not intimate with the tw franchise at all) will tell nothing but big noise unless the extracts monitor/account for the top ranked 200 ladder in an isolated bracket Judging from the mp, the average tw player is just dreadful at the game. Judging from CA's 3k blogpost about the unit balancing process īeside all their tools and professionalism, i think some of us long-term enthusiasts can entertain some useful ideas that havent been had and/or whicih their data extraction simply wont tell (them)
0 kommentar(er)
