State of Balance

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[scrapking]

Meh. You're really not worth the time, mate. You're just argumentative and hardly play the mod at all, it's amazing how you can even facilitate an opinion or argument based on your lack of experience.

I'm going to have to call you on how full of shit you are.  You obviously have nothing constructive or reality-based to say back, like a parent telling a child "because I said so".

I've been here longer than you, and by no small margin, and I'd wager a large amount of money that I've logged more hours of playtime than you in this mod, and by no small margin.  It's amazing how you can even facilitate an opinion of me without knowing that.  

If I'm not "worth the time", it might have been more polite to simply not say anything at all rather than saying that.  I find it utterly condescending and rude, which by the way was not the direction I took with you at all.  You have just demonstrated to me how little you deserve to be involved with development given your reaction to the sort of discussion I've raised.  And please don't make the mistake of misconstruing that for jealousy, you'd really have no idea just how wrong you'd be there too.  Again.

[jackmccrack]

face it dude you suck at this game

[31stPzGren]

Scrapking, actually you can't be more wrong about Scyn & his involvement in development as well. This is a good thread, lay off the flames please. I would like to read whats the final conclusion, so far no Dev team members (scyn excluded) has really given a clear stand.

[AmPM]

Actually I do play Allies.

I played them as I said, all last war.

I played them in the last war before EIRR as well, and I was one of the first to use AB, just to prove to Cozmo that it wasn't a crap doctrine.

I've probably played more Allies than you have...

[jackmccrack]

haha, when did you become a comedian

[petewinny23]

I agree with people in this thread that suggest people only play one side for a reason, other than because its cool or just cause they only like a specific side. Sooooo many play brits just to play a game while they are learning!

Look at vCOH people in the top leaderboards almost always appear across multiple factions...........they dont specifically stick to one faction.....why? Cause its still fun to play all perhaps.......

GamesGuy2 u nailed only people that play both factions should comment in this specific thread!!!!!!! Too many times i here axis rebuttles about american inf/tan.......but no comment on british as if they dont exist and they dont use the same tactics there brushing off on them!

Scrapking nailed it on the vet issue as well the game is clearly not balanced when u can check the leader bored stats amongst the vet units and there are clearly more axis vetted units......check out the brit player leader board im on it and i only started playing again about a week ago!?!?!?!?!?! Granted stats were reset!  

Possible limiting of how many vet squads can be fielded at any one time possible solution.......for those whinging about vet blob spams......possibly to hard to implement!!!!! or maybe make it cost alot more sp for a second and third squad of a unit type to reach higher vet.......also possibly harder to implement or cause an unexpected balance.

I dont have difinitive answers but you will get more serious CW/AM players if u make the transition into the mod easier.....right now its to hard!!!! I mean a call to play this mode would be vetting up troops......its too difficult to do that as CW/AM at the moment......so u just lost your edge on other mods for these people.... to them its just another multiplayer game now......

Scrapking is also right bout that battalion info.....conduct a survey and u will c results aligning with Scrapkings comments.......

On a side note I played an axis game before and wow those pIV are a little OP.......not because of their stats or their survivability or anything previously mentioned in other balance threads........purely because u can field 3 of them before u need to spend pp on another!!!!!! My point: reduce it to 2 it reflects more accurately the tanks available at the time.....end of PIV OP discussion!


I must admit though it must be tiresome for devs to fix one problem then turn around and find they have created a thousands new ones!!!!! This is the best mod for the game.....its rich unique style of gameplay is endearing......once u get a few games under your belt............i must admit its better now than it was say 6-10 months ago when no one would play with you if u were noob! Reason i stopped playing back then!

THE only reason i guess for this thread is toaddress solutions to:

1) get more people playing
2) on allies side prefereably
3) increased vet for allies
4) an issue about availability for axis units needs to be addressed. yes they had better weapons/tanks but no they had few supplies and few men and tanks left to fight.

[AmPM]

If you want people to play Allies, and want to play Allies, they need some wow factor, thats really it. Balance isn't off. Its just not exciting.

[jackmccrack]

the truth comes out 

[AmPM]

On a side note I played an axis game before and wow those pIV are a little OP.......not because of their stats or their survivability or anything previously mentioned in other balance threads........purely because u can field 3 of them before u need to spend pp on another!!!!!! My point: reduce it to 2 it reflects more accurately the tanks available at the time.....end of PIV OP discussion!

ROFLMAO

Wait a minute, P4s are OP now?

[scrapking]

Scrapking, actually you can't be more wrong about Scyn & his involvement in development as well. This is a good thread, lay off the flames please. I would like to read whats the final conclusion, so far no Dev team members (scyn excluded) has really given a clear stand.

I might be, but when I receive replies like his (rude, condescending, dismissive), there is going to be a large net loss in respect.  I haven't flamed anyone, rather I feel as though a dev came in here and flamed me out of not having a valid response to my concerns.

[AmPM]

the truth comes out 

I've made similar posts about allies not being exciting over the last few months. Its just not that interesting. They can be fun, but its all variations on the same.

I know we don't want to add more units, but maybe add some more upgrades to Riflemen, Veteran Sgt would be good, same as the PE one, but adds a guy with Thompson and they can still buy BARs, just a little MP and MU cost (40mp, 20mu). It would add a bit of character without breaking it, and add a little more assault firepower.

Truscot Trot upgrade, gives them a sprint without any suppression modifiers. Things like that, to make differentiate some of your Rifles from the pile of clone troopers.

[TheWindCriesMary]

I really don't know where you're gathering your information that there are more players on one side than the other. There are almost exactly the same number of Allied accounts as Axis accounts. 1731 Battalions. 869 Allies, and 862 Axis.

It's also not a problem of vet retention. It's a problem of vet gain. Anyone can keep a unit alive if they really want to. It's a problem of getting the kills necessary to vet up and aside from Allied Elite infantry, Axis unfortunately have the upper hand in this matter.

Your information is skewed by the fact that people have multiple accounts, and might play one over the other to accommodate there being a game at all.  The problems are that for one, which side do you suspect people would play for that reason?  Is that a good reason for people to play a faction, in terms of enjoying the mod for the long term?  Aside from being intrinsically unfair, it just isn't healthy for long term player or faction retention.  I would think that is obvious.

At any given time of day, I bet there are consistently more Axis players looking for games than Allied (based on my own perceptions in the lobby / ventrilo over the past few years, as well as discussions with other players).  And out of the players who are looking for games an important question to answer would be "how many of each faction are currently only playing that faction to facilitate playing a game at all"?  I don't know of anyone who plays Axis when they prefer to play Allied "just to make a game", but the exact opposite is the norm, the former, a rare exception.  I think this truth is fairly obvious to most every EiR player.

As far as your comment about vet, I can agree that vet gain is also a big part of it, so rather than squabble about whether its retention or gain, let us agree that part of the issue is vet in general.

 Your argument is entirely based on conjecture and your own person observations, which is fine if you want to state an opinion, but doesn't hold the same weight when you want to make a convincing case of any objectivity. The fact of the matter is, removed entirely from personal opinion, that the hard evidence represented by both the leaderboard stats and the data offered earlier in this thread by Scyn which clearly shows an eerily-well matched number of Wehr and US battalions currently in the mod.

 The leaderboard stats are particularily invaluable because it offers us best representation currently available of the propensity of certain armies to win in ideal circumstances: eg. when an army is being used by the "best" players. Crudely speaking, this is the very population of players that are the canary in the mine when it comes to determining whether an army is too underpowered to compete. For example, last version the PE doctrine had a hugely disproportionate amount of players in the top 20 with negative win to loss ratios in comparison to the other 3 armies. This was a telling sign of an army that required even seasoned players to work extra hard just to maintain even the most decent of stats.

 In terms of balancing each of the four armies to create an essential equillibrium, that is an ongoing process no doubt - especially when it involved the British and PE which are not, as has been said already, as fundamentally sound as the original two factions which are much more "traditional" in their design and thus have a firmer foundation.

 But as far as any frantic claims (of which hardly a day goes by without some new claim) to a fundamental imbalance between Axis and Allies altogether, these are rarely anything more than mere dissatisfaction and frustration that they are different. People too often on these boards get it into their heads somehow that in order for two armies to be balanced, each of their corresponding units must be precisely equal when just such a very circumstance would render the game (and this mod) completely terrible.

 It is the differences that make confrontations between the armies interesting, and which allow players to choose their side so as to suit their playing style. Those that prefer fewer, but individually more powerful units often stray towards Axis, while those who like larger amounts of cheaper (but no less ingenious) units will tend to stray towards the allies. Therefore this whole nonsensical campaign by some to whitewash the whole game, or to bemoan the strengths of their opponent's armies all the while ignoring the advantages of their own merely because they are in different areas, is a little threadbare.

  In the end though, I do not say this to suggest that you are guilty of many of these failings, but only to draw attention to them once more. Pzrgren fell into many of these traps in a similar thread because he wasn't able to correctly pinpoint the causes of his frustration, and doing so led him to make broad and sweeping generalizations fueled by emotion and subjectivity alone. Some of that has been repeated in this thread with your opening post, and I think it will be found far more profitable to step back from the table and approach it again with a more objective eye.

 Are there really more axis players than allies? And if there are, can we safely build a conclusion of our liking on top of that? (eg. the reason there are is because the balance is bad).

 The stats say that the opposite is in fact true (more allies than axis) but that the difference, if any, is negligible. And mitigating circumstances notwithstanding, there is certainly nothing to suggest that this form of evidence is by any means inferior, or even slightly refuted by "personal observation". "I often see more axis players looking for games than allied ones" is simply not an effective or solvent means of challenging what is much more easily and indifferently observed in this manner. Now were your observation commonly accepted as majority view, of course stats would be less important, however as it is now the views you have expressed (while echoed vehemently by several people no doubt) are by no means widespread or universally accepted.

 Secondly, what can we conclude from the statistics on the leaderboards?

 1. That the best american players, as reported by the leaderboard, are able to win just as frequently as their wehr counterparts.
 2. That there are no major discrepencies in this abillity to win between the two sides in the most usual of circumstances (competent handlers).

 

 For my part I have been extremely pleased with the way this mod has arrived at it's current point, and am optimistic about it's future given the current state of balance. I know many who agree, many who don't, and many who are indifferent either way. But what I also know, and which no argument to the contrary can hope to refute, is that this mod is currently as popular and succesful as it has ever been. Despite the isolated claims of injustice and obvious imbalance made by some, you can log into the launcher at any hour as of now and find a very healthy number of games - more than I, or people who have been playing much longer than I, have ever had the pleasure of seeing on such a consistent basis.

 That alone inspires confidence. If not that things are perfect, then atleast in that they are certainly on some kind of right track.

 -Wind

  

[scrapking]

the truth comes out 

I've made similar posts about allies not being exciting over the last few months. Its just not that interesting. They can be fun, but its all variations on the same.

I know we don't want to add more units, but maybe add some more upgrades to Riflemen, Veteran Sgt would be good, same as the PE one, but adds a guy with Thompson and they can still buy BARs, just a little MP and MU cost (40mp, 20mu). It would add a bit of character without breaking it, and add a little more assault firepower.

Truscot Trot upgrade, gives them a sprint without any suppression modifiers. Things like that, to make differentiate some of your Rifles from the pile of clone troopers.

AMPM, this is exactly the line of thinking I am trying to promote, for the exact reasons you give.

[Scyn]

I don't need a survey. I can break down Every person, Every faction, Every doctrine, Every battalion.. I can even break down the number of reinforcement packages chosen. The numbers are highly credible. The fact that people have multiple accounts doesn't say too much. BD and Aloha have 20 accounts between the 2 of them. 2 are Allies. You think that people aren't just refusing to try the other factions? That's hardcore proof right there.

@ Scrapking

I just frankly have more pressing matters to attend to as far as pleasing the community. I really can't take the time to argue with you about the things you won't accept. There's many many many more players than you that spend more time playing this mod whose concerns are more valid in that fact. Because I do not have the time for someone who comes in here and forms arguments and opinions based on 5 games since the release of 006. And gods sake.. you're arguing with me over data you don't have.

[DasNoob]

I really don't know where you're gathering your information that there are more players on one side than the other. There are almost exactly the same number of Allied accounts as Axis accounts. 1731 Battalions. 869 Allies, and 862 Axis.

It's also not a problem of vet retention. It's a problem of vet gain. Anyone can keep a unit alive if they really want to. It's a problem of getting the kills necessary to vet up and aside from Allied Elite infantry, Axis unfortunately have the upper hand in this matter.

Your information is skewed by the fact that people have multiple accounts, and might play one over the other to accommodate there being a game at all.  The problems are that for one, which side do you suspect people would play for that reason?  Is that a good reason for people to play a faction, in terms of enjoying the mod for the long term?  Aside from being intrinsically unfair, it just isn't healthy for long term player or faction retention.  I would think that is obvious.

At any given time of day, I bet there are consistently more Axis players looking for games than Allied (based on my own perceptions in the lobby / ventrilo over the past few years, as well as discussions with other players).  And out of the players who are looking for games an important question to answer would be "how many of each faction are currently only playing that faction to facilitate playing a game at all"?  I don't know of anyone who plays Axis when they prefer to play Allied "just to make a game", but the exact opposite is the norm, the former, a rare exception.  I think this truth is fairly obvious to most every EiR player.

As far as your comment about vet, I can agree that vet gain is also a big part of it, so rather than squabble about whether its retention or gain, let us agree that part of the issue is vet in general.

 Your argument is entirely based on conjecture and your own person observations, which is fine if you want to state an opinion, but doesn't hold the same weight when you want to make a convincing case of any objectivity. The fact of the matter is, removed entirely from personal opinion, that the hard evidence represented by both the leaderboard stats and the data offered earlier in this thread by Scyn which clearly shows an eerily-well matched number of Wehr and US battalions currently in the mod.

 The leaderboard stats are particularily invaluable because it offers us best representation currently available of the propensity of certain armies to win in ideal circumstances: eg. when an army is being used by the "best" players. Crudely speaking, this is the very population of players that are the canary in the mine when it comes to determining whether an army is too underpowered to compete. For example, last version the PE doctrine had a hugely disproportionate amount of players in the top 20 with negative win to loss ratios in comparison to the other 3 armies. This was a telling sign of an army that required even seasoned players to work extra hard just to maintain even the most decent of stats.

 In terms of balancing each of the four armies to create an essential equillibrium, that is an ongoing process no doubt - especially when it involved the British and PE which are not, as has been said already, as fundamentally sound as the original two factions which are much more "traditional" in their design and thus have a firmer foundation.

 But as far as any frantic claims (of which hardly a day goes by without some new claim) to a fundamental imbalance between Axis and Allies altogether, these are rarely anything more than mere dissatisfaction and frustration that they are different. People too often on these boards get it into their heads somehow that in order for two armies to be balanced, each of their corresponding units must be precisely equal when just such a very circumstance would render the game (and this mod) completely terrible.

 It is the differences that make confrontations between the armies interesting, and which allow players to choose their side so as to suit their playing style. Those that prefer fewer, but individually more powerful units often stray towards Axis, while those who like larger amounts of cheaper (but no less ingenious) units will tend to stray towards the allies. Therefore this whole nonsensical campaign by some to whitewash the whole game, or to bemoan the strengths of their opponent's armies all the while ignoring the advantages of their own merely because they are in different areas, is a little threadbare.

  In the end though, I do not say this to suggest that you are guilty of many of these failings, but only to draw attention to them once more. Pzrgren fell into many of these traps in a similar thread because he wasn't able to correctly pinpoint the causes of his frustration, and doing so led him to make broad and sweeping generalizations fueled by emotion and subjectivity alone. Some of that has been repeated in this thread with your opening post, and I think it will be found far more profitable to step back from the table and approach it again with a more objective eye.

 Are there really more axis players than allies? And if there are, can we safely build a conclusion of our liking on top of that? (eg. the reason there are is because the balance is bad).

 The stats say that the opposite is in fact true (more allies than axis) but that the difference, if any, is negligible. And mitigating circumstances notwithstanding, there is certainly nothing to suggest that this form of evidence is by any means inferior, or even slightly refuted by "personal observation". "I often see more axis players looking for games than allied ones" is simply not an effective or solvent means of challenging what is much more easily and indifferently observed in this manner. Now were your observation commonly accepted as majority view, of course stats would be less important, however as it is now the views you have expressed (while echoed vehemently by several people no doubt) are by no means widespread or universally accepted.

 Secondly, what can we conclude from the statistics on the leaderboards?

 1. That the best american players, as reported by the leaderboard, are able to win just as frequently as their wehr counterparts.
 2. That there are no major discrepencies in this abillity to win between the two sides in the most usual of circumstances (competent handlers).

 

 For my part I have been extremely pleased with the way this mod has arrived at it's current point, and am optimistic about it's future given the current state of balance. I know many who agree, many who don't, and many who are indifferent either way. But what I also know, and which no argument to the contrary can hope to refute, is that this mod is currently as popular and succesful as it has ever been. Despite the isolated claims of injustice and obvious imbalance made by some, you can log into the launcher at any hour as of now and find a very healthy number of games - more than I, or people who have been playing much longer than I, have ever had the pleasure of seeing on such a consistent basis.

 That alone inspires confidence. If not that things are perfect, then atleast in that they are certainly on some kind of right track.

 -Wind

  

Ok now I have a man crush on Wind! 

[scrapking]

Are there really more axis players than allies? And if there are, can we safely build a conclusion of our liking on top of that? (eg. the reason there are is because the balance is bad).

My point is less about debating what are the causes, but rather about what would resolve it.  We can for the sake of discussion and intrigue make assumptions about cause, but I don't find it very debatable that if one side were intentionally improved, or the other intentionally weakened, that it would be unreasonable to expect a change in the number of players on each side.

Firstly, Scyn's earlier post about account numbers is misleading, unreliable and fallacious.  All it shows are created accounts. What is the relevant number?  Available players who desire to play Allies, vs. the same who desire to play Axis.  If we want hard data, the only reliable way to acquire it would be to poll online players at various times of day.  So sure, admittedly I am making a conclusion based upon observation rather than scientific method, but bear in mind that this observation is based on years of my own play, as well as discussion with other players - many of whom have more games played in this mod than me.

As far as the vet leaderboards, you have some points, I'd have to take a closer look and give it some more thought.  But the impression that I got from viewing them was basically unless you play Allied Elite Infantry, you can't expect to have a unit up there.  Whereas a fairly wide array of Axis units can.  

Anyway, again, my intention here is to draw attention to accepting that there is a problem with playerbase balance, and that it can, in fact, be affected by mod design and balance.  The former may be in dispute without hard, relevant data - although I severely doubt it to the point that I took for granted it being common knowledge, but the latter  - that something can be done - should be obvious to all.

[Demon767]

i hate people who think they believe why people choose factions. i only play 1 faction. PE. Why? cuz ive only got opposing fronts. does that put me in the "oh axis are op and thats why i picked it?" no. i play PE because ive always have played PE. and i have never found Allies to be appealing to me. Why not? because they just dont, not because some people think Axis are over powered (though some forget that allies have more numbers of men). ive always played PE in vanilla coh aswell, so ive always tried to better myself at one faction. thats my reason, and because i want to makethe best company i can possibly, i dont ave time to play brits to make em good aswell. i jut dont have the time or the care.
so get me out of the dam majority thats stuck in ur head.

btw i only read the authors first post cuz i couldnt b bothered ot read everything else so its just for the author

[Nevyen]

We the dev team appreciate the objectivity and opinions of whats being said, that being the case we like any team will go over all that is here and assimilate what we think are relvant points into our ongoing discussions about the state of the game.

We all strongly believe that balance is close, but we are also aware that it cannot be perfect, bear in mind there will always be a new way to squezze more out of somthing, abuse somthing, pervert the intention of somthing for gain.  You cannot code out humanity or intelligence.

Henca balance is and will always be an ogoing affair, right now its a huge focus as doctrines role out but once thats achieved as a milestone well then we have the warmap which will again need for balance changes.

At this stage we can see some clear changes that need to be effected, lets be honest here and upfront to the point where we accept that there are some clear needs for certain things to be adjusted.

As to what and how well that will be revealed in patch notes. Thanks again to all repsondants on what has so far been a very polite and well discussed thread with lots of considerate posts.

As Always

NEVYEN

[31stPzGren]

Your argument is entirely based on conjecture and your own person observations, which is fine if you want to state an opinion, but doesn't hold the same weight when you want to make a convincing case of any objectivity. The fact of the matter is, removed entirely from personal opinion, that the hard evidence represented by both the leaderboard stats and the data offered earlier in this thread by Scyn which clearly shows an eerily-well matched number of Wehr and US battalions currently in the mod.

It is no indicator that the amount of players are evenly matched. Do a ip trace to each of these accounts, determine which of these accounts are active or not and show the stats again. Otherwise, the "hard evidence" is totally open to interpretation.

On top of that, monitor the log of allied players being online in the launcher and axis players. If you want to be vindicative, thats what you should do rather than making conclusions based on only one statistic.

The leaderboard stats are particularily invaluable because it offers us best representation currently available of the propensity of certain armies to win in ideal circumstances: eg. when an army is being used by the "best" players. Crudely speaking, this is the very population of players that are the canary in the mine when it comes to determining whether an army is too underpowered to compete. For example, last version the PE doctrine had a hugely disproportionate amount of players in the top 20 with negative win to loss ratios in comparison to the other 3 armies. This was a telling sign of an army that required even seasoned players to work extra hard just to maintain even the most decent of stats.

No it isn't an accurate indicator either. Unless the leaderboards display the names of EACH and EVERY player they play against, it does not prove whether they are the best players, or whether the army is indeed balanced.

The player base is not sufficiently large enough for a "law of averages" effect and more over, people can choose what match to play and what maps to play, resulting in even more subjectivity. So that isn't true.

But as far as any frantic claims (of which hardly a day goes by without some new claim) to a fundamental imbalance between Axis and Allies altogether, these are rarely anything more than mere dissatisfaction and frustration that they are different. People too often on these boards get it into their heads somehow that in order for two armies to be balanced, each of their corresponding units must be precisely equal when just such a very circumstance would render the game (and this mod) completely terrible.

 It is the differences that make confrontations between the armies interesting, and which allow players to choose their side so as to suit their playing style. Those that prefer fewer, but individually more powerful units often stray towards Axis, while those who like larger amounts of cheaper (but no less ingenious) units will tend to stray towards the allies. Therefore this whole nonsensical campaign by some to whitewash the whole game, or to bemoan the strengths of their opponent's armies all the while ignoring the advantages of their own merely because they are in different areas, is a little threadbare.

No one ever said anything about both armies having to be precisely equal in the entire thread in order to be balanced.

Are there really more axis players than allies? And if there are, can we safely build a conclusion of our liking on top of that? (eg. the reason there are is because the balance is bad).

 The stats say that the opposite is in fact true (more allies than axis) but that the difference, if any, is negligible. And mitigating circumstances notwithstanding, there is certainly nothing to suggest that this form of evidence is by any means inferior, or even slightly refuted by "personal observation". "I often see more axis players looking for games than allied ones" is simply not an effective or solvent means of challenging what is much more easily and indifferently observed in this manner. Now were your observation commonly accepted as majority view, of course stats would be less important, however as it is now the views you have expressed (while echoed vehemently by several people no doubt) are by no means widespread or universally accepted.

Go and survey every player first before you make such a general and sweeping statement about how the views expressed are by no means widespread or universally accepted. You have no hard data on that other than your personal opinion & experience as well.

Secondly, what can we conclude from the statistics on the leaderboards?

 1. That the best american players, as reported by the leaderboard, are able to win just as frequently as their wehr counterparts.
 2. That there are no major discrepencies in this abillity to win between the two sides in the most usual of circumstances (competent handlers).

As mentioned earlier, statistics on leaderboards prove nothing apart from history.

Despite the isolated claims of injustice and obvious imbalance made by some, you can log into the launcher at any hour as of now and find a very healthy number of games - more than I, or people who have been playing much longer than I, have ever had the pleasure of seeing on such a consistent basis.

Define healthy number of games & which hour precisely justifies as "any hour". On asian time, your claim is definitely false.

While claiming to be logical, you make the same mistakes yourself in your own posts and discussion.

[scrapking]

I don't need a survey. I can break down Every person, Every faction, Every doctrine, Every battalion.. I can even break down the number of reinforcement packages chosen. The numbers are highly credible. The fact that people have multiple accounts doesn't say too much. BD and Aloha have 20 accounts between the 2 of them. 2 are Allies. You think that people aren't just refusing to try the other factions? That's hardcore proof right there.

@ Scrapking

I just frankly have more pressing matters to attend to as far as pleasing the community. I really can't take the time to argue with you about the things you won't accept. There's many many many more players than you that spend more time playing this mod whose concerns are more valid in that fact. Because I do not have the time for someone who comes in here and forms arguments and opinions based on 5 games since the release of 006. And gods sake.. you're arguing with me over data you don't have.

Until you produce numbers which show the number of players seeking to play a given faction, over time at any given time, relative to the number of players who are playing Allied "for the sake of creating a full game" relative to the number of players who are playing Axis "for the sake of creating a game", all those other numbers are meaningless, and irrelevant to my point.

And nobody is disputing that some players "refuse to play certain factions" - the problem lies in that there are reasons for it, and things that can be done to discourage it, or encourage playing what would have been undesirable - through balance and mod design.  Another important number to have would be of the people who "refuse to play certain factions", what % of them are playing what factions?  If it's 50/50 then I'd be wrong, but I seriously doubt that it is.

And @ Scyn, I frankly have been a part of this mod for too long, and have spent too many years on this earth to be treated as dismissively and disrespectfully as you have behaved with me.  How many games I have played since 006 is irrelevant to the points I have been making, and not only has the data you have produced been irrelevant to this discussion - but apparently you are also arguing with me over data you also do not have.

The SQL database cannot produce the information related to this discussion.  If we want the accurate answers, a running survey would be the only accurate way to measure it.  Personally I would be beyond shocked and surprised if it produced results suggesting anything other than what I have been saying.