Game Knowledge Test Before Becoming a Balance Team/Tester

[Morax]

Guys, I'm reading some concerns/suggestions that indicate a lot of people who have not learned a decent amount of the game are commenting here. In the past, I have had to teach people that navy yards shouldn't have tmd because you can build tmd/aa structures on water. Believe it or not, a lot of players don't know this.

The result is that a lot of them see "imbalances" where in actuality it is a lack of game knowledge.

I'd like to propose on top of balance discussions that we make a test where, for example, people need to get at least 90% or better to show they know the unit types, capabilities, strategic commands (e.g. switch unit type), etc, etc.

I know it sounds harsh, but we have a "tactics/strategy" sub-forum in the help section for people that have concerns.

The goal is to create a list of people with adequate game knowledge to cut down the "fluff" that enters these discussions.

In my short two weeks here trying to digest all the information I feel I could put "TL;DR" for many of the topics, e.g. the Cybran Cerberus turret, FAF Imbalances (by LichKing), etc, etc.

I don't like the idea of cutting off discussion from "all skill levels," but it's probably necessary at this point.

[PhilipJFry]

Why not just put global/ladder rating next to playernames in the forum?

[Hawkei]

Why not just put global/ladder rating next to playernames in the forum?

Because, global and ladder ratings are more reliant on execution than game knowledge. It is possible for a player to have very good game knowledge - and yet have poor reactions, APM, bad habits, or execution failings which impact on their rating. Conversely, a player can have very good execution, but be limited to a narrow range of gameplay experiences.

There is no test which can conclusively determine whether a player will be a good balance tester. Which is why admission is based on appointment by the team leader.

[Sovietpride]

Why not just put global/ladder rating next to playernames in the forum?

Because, global and ladder ratings are more reliant on execution than game knowledge. It is possible for a player to have very good game knowledge - and yet have poor reactions, APM, bad habits, or execution failings which impact on their rating. Conversely, a player can have very good execution, but be limited to a narrow range of gameplay experiences.

There is no test which can conclusively determine whether a player will be a good balance tester. Which is why admission is based on appointment by the team leader.

To an extent.
I don't doubt that people of lesser rating can have valid opinions.

But it's also damn tiring to see people complain about balance when actually, they just suck.
Top level ladder being cybran dominated is one thing.

Not being able to get there because of cybran OPness?
Laughable. 1800 through UEF only before I stopped.

It's too easy to blame the game instead of yourself

[Lieutenant Lich]

Violence, the imbalances I pointed out are too bad or what?

Also, why not remove the really poor suggestions (e.g. The Cerberus, my SML/SMD thing + Quantum Gate (they are for sure not the greatest ones))? That should clean Balance forum and Suggestions up.

[Apofenas]

You can farm 1800 on winter duel and know nothing exept gun-com+arty rush.

You can be 900-1400 and write a good balance suggestion or unit concept and actually put it in mod.

Game knowledge=/=rating.

[Ithilis_Quo]

very ussles post, only reason for this post was kick to others that dont have magical 1400 rating as author...


rating isnt relevant on game knowledge and potential usefull suggestion. End of story.

[Morax]

Hi guys,

Where in my post did I say "rating"

You pretty much assumed I did by reading replies - nice work!

[briang]

There are people with low rating who display obvious game knowledge and there are also people who make all low rated players look like idiots.

Morax is a clear example of someone in a low-mid range bracket who clearly knows what they're talking about as far as land is concerned. I'd point to Exotic_Retard as another example.

There are also people who are rated 1600 who can say they are going to go eco heavy on a Seton's naval spot and still have all t2 mex at minute 20 (that should happen in under half that time if you're really ecoing).

Rating is beside the point. There are muppets in every range up to about 1700+ who don't actually understand the first thing about why they play the way they play or why it is efficient to do X etc.

Clearly it isn't all about rating, this sounds like a fantastic idea.

Lichking if you were rated higher than Gala (most of) your posts would still make no sense. The number is mostly meaningless.

[Morax]

Guys, I didn't ask that a rating be tagged onto peoples' names.... let's focus, please.