Dawn of War Codex

I respect your opinions, so what im not going to quote is stuff more or less I agree with it, but:

You don't need to play the game to formulate a brilliant macro to use in it but it sure helps.

This true to some extent, but you do need to try the macro in an actual game and before that you cannot pretend it works 100% of the time if you haven't used it against players of the adequate skills as I've pointed out before, because the theory doesn't take into consideration alot of stuff, which includes the players (yourself and opponent) ability to react to a set amount of actions, which is essential to the execution of the it, this includes the opponent because X build will work on a player that cannot handle 2 situations at once but won't against someone that his able to micro more than Y units, then you need to take into account how much map you need to control and CAN control with your macro to make it viable, so that it doesn't leave you with less VPs/power/req to snowball back if your strategy requires so, then there are to consider the RNG aspects from either the in-game mechanics aswell as the player encounters (for example your shotties scouts meets unupgraded shees instead of rangers), and much other stuff which im not gonna include right now.

Yet it doesn't mean you can't have one! You may have a great theory about how best to play the game but you just aren't quick enough on your micro to put it into action.

This again applies to what I wrote above, theory is different from practice, obviously to do an action you need an idea, which could be very well a theory, but if you aren't able to execute it you lose all kind of credibility, follow me for a second, if I say I can jump 50 meters, and then I only jump 1 I make a fool of myself, the same applies to what I read on these forums sometimes, I see alot of theories/builds and other stuff that just doesn't work at a certain level of play, this is hugely misleading for players of even lower skill levels which then may try such build against an opponent that's better than them and knows how to counter it and then come back here or go around other forums saying X units is OP, elite is a unbalanced and shit like this, simply because they were following the wrong advice or their theory was wrong.

That's why If I get asked about nids orks and IG I can give some general advices but I'll redirect whoever asks me about them to people that are more competent about those races, in other words, don't give advices if you haven't tested them at the highest skill rating avaiable, because trust me, they are wrong.

you didn't explain it properly to them/bias on their behalf made them unable to properly utilise it.

Exactly, that's why you have to stand up for your own ideas and the same goes for your theories, if you cannot do it yourself, it's worthless, as you pointed out it's harsh, but I find being brutally honest is better than a sweet lie.



All the stuff I said in these last posts are not restricted to the debate forest and anomaly had, this goes for everything on these forums, generally talking Im not saying you shouldn't have an opinion and that you should blindly follow what a guy, even if he's the best one said, but, before spreading it as an absolute truth, think about it a couple of times and actually try it against someone competitive.

Superhooper01 wrote:Please listen to forest he knows his gk info:p

The opinions suggested by his words heavily conflict with the reality i have experienced with the race. Both while playing as and against gk

So I take his words with a grain of salt.

This thread has gone to a strange place.

Seems like a normal gk thread to me.

Cyris wrote:This thread has gone to a strange place.

saltychipmunk wrote:Seems like a normal GK thread to me.]

I agree on both counts, wtf is this? Are we done with the thread topic?

All the stuff I said in these last posts are not restricted to the debate forest and anomaly had, this goes for everything on these forums, generally talking Im not saying you shouldn't have an opinion and that you should blindly follow what a guy, even if he's the best one said, but, before spreading it as an absolute truth, think about it a couple of times and actually try it against someone competitive

.

(Unsure if this was directed aT me or not)
Never did I state any opinion I had in this thread as an absolute truth.

I will say I believed that Strikes ranged damage was under performing in the massive Strike squad debate thread like so many others.

However, I understand what your saying Ace.

I get that level of play influences game play and restricts choices making problems obviously apparent as seen in 1v1s restricting build orders, creating small time intervals to make something happen. I dont even have to play the game to figure out most of these match-ups and who they favor because I know logically outcomes of scenarios based upon speculation taking into account percentages and chances as well as factions strengths and weaknesses but, I do anyways because that's why we play the game...because people are flawd, and because random shit happens.

At the end of the day, what you said in regards to establishing your own opinion is what I was trying to get across. I do understand what you said about taking in stronger gamers advice ..
However when I see people constantly trying to discourage others from saying anything at all on a subject , saying "listen to [Fill in the blank]" to the point where in underline they are saying shut up and let this person decide the coarse of direction in something your opinion doesn't matter, I take action.

It's this whole supremist vibe going on that I'm confronting. Humans naturally look to take in information from others they see are of "higher class" because they are sucessful, I get that, and undoubtedly there is a strong logical sense and reason as to why in regards to their understanding on the subject matter...

But just because they are successful does not mean there is no need for other sources of ideas to generate and those ideas to be respectably taken into account and "theoretically trialed". That's how life works. People think of somthing, they bring it to the floor, and no matter how mind boggling stupid, or how unbelievably and life changing genius, I will give it the respect it deserves to analyze it, take it upon myself to put myself in the shoes of that person and constructively build on what they say to which even then like I said to Salty "You can start in the direction to making such a change happen by doing (Fill in the blank) but in hind sight this is probably not going to happen because of (blank)

I did not shut him/her down, I did not imply he/she had no understanding of the subject matter because he/she may or may not play with "high level players".

I built off of the idea, further presenting the idea to the community, but nicely, honestly and completely considerate told him/her the reasons also in disfavor of what he/she called for.

that's how I go about things, because whether I see someone as under or above me, I give them the respect I would want in return and when I see others acting so rudely, I once again... take action

Torpid wrote:It could be that there is some philosopher of religion out there who has this brilliant proof of why God must exist, but it's so unbelievably complex that he just can't put into words that anybody else could understand.

AKA completely mental

Cheekie Monkie wrote:The fact whether or not someone is able to beat my ass in a game is irrelevant. There's a billion and one variables that go into winning a match, so it doesn't provide a good control environment to test someone's hypothesis.

You don't just play once. you play, lets say, at least 10 times.

I think input from skilled players should be valued highly when making balance decisions. However, with such a small community, the effects of personal bias and preference factor more heavily than if, say, we could takes the opinions of the top 50 players of a community of 10k+, and test them in a tournament setting where each commander/faction combination and matchup gets rigorous testing.

I'm not implying that our top players are biased and their opinion should be disregarded, just that personal foibles have a greater impact on the process in a small community, so it's probably a good idea to include opinions from a broad range. Maybe that's just the self-interested opinion of a thoroughly middling player, I dunno.

Ultimately of course, it's up a Caeltos how he decides to weight individual and community opinion.

edit: though I will say, Caeltos, don't take too much inspiration from Gabriel Gorgutz