I lose with Tyranids almost every single game, but fare better with others.
y do I lose with OP faction
The answer is quite simple infact, some factions are just not maybe your playstyle. Eventho you might like them, won't translate into you being neccasarily better with them then with other factions.
For an example of this, I'll try to explain at least my PoV from my vanilla to Retribution competetive-scene play-history and my picks & why, eventho they were considered sub-par. I'll try to disregard pre TioW since everything pre-that was kinda just all over the place, and after TioW the competetive scene kicked off the most with the EMS and etc;
Vanilla;
I played mostly just Eldar and Space Marines, mostly because they both shared a very similiar playstyle through the tier progressions. Eldar early-agression is similiar to Space Marines, it was more about picking & choosing your fights. Tyranids were genuially concieved as the best competetive-faction, with both RA/HT (Lictor Alpha was actually pretty sub-par this time in the competetive-scene until AlwaysLame and other misc. tyranid players showed up)
Back on track -
Tier progression of Eldar/Space Marines were again, similiar - you would try accumulate as much pressure potential in the early-game and try to avoid your losses, to build up your economical bank in T2 to get crucial fast timings on misc. wargears/units. Mostly for Space Marines, it revolved on Combat Stims/Puri+ Axe(or Bolter preference) then ASMs to beat even T3 nobs and what-have you, ASMs were the bonkers crazy units back then. You'd just fill in with supplimental T3 units like Preds/Terminators with Cyclones back then, or the AC's if you were into that type of thing, but Cyclones back then were really strong, until they got nerfed hard.
Eldar was mostly just Warlock due to leap, the leap was considerably more stronger, and the map picks were usually Ruins of Argus for this, to maintain southern map pressure through leap/knockback on the southern points. Triple Guardians were also a standard, but not a neccassity because they transitioned very well, and presented with strong sustain through their damage mitigation, actually more along the lines of tacticals sustainbility. Falcon useage was fairly common and it wasn't uncommon to see several of them. Fire Prisms were not as strong either in the meta, but they were acceptable units to obtain, but far more niché.
Either way, you get the idea. Preference picks & playstyles are far more important to take into consideration when you try to evaluate the balance as a whole. If you can't play a defensive-game, then you probably shouldn't play a defensive-faction. If you're not one to take risks and want to trade economical blows, then maybe Orks isn't your faction. If you don't want to apply continous pressure and want to be relentless, then nids is not your definitive pick.
It doesn't mean that they only have one-way to approach the factions "definitive" theme, that's why commanders are there to begin with. They both offer a different platsylle within them. But Apothecary/Warlock had more in common with each other in the early days of DoW2 where he functioned alot more as a supportive-melee commander, and he still does to some degree if you build him up like it. And so on forth;
I like applying pressure, but I also want to be able to transition myself into a playstyle where I can try to reassess the game and play it defensively and turtle. In Chaos Rising, Chaos presented this option, and argueably they're the more potent punisher/turtles in the game. One big thing is economical check-up and maintaining good econimical balance tho, which I'm still always trying to work around, but it's difficult to do so in certain matchups, but I'm perfectly fine with that, I still feel there's always a fighting chance.
Map picks are also super important, when you face a typical player that foregoes snipers in 2v2s, in competetive scene, you'd always pick a map that favors something in your favor. Like Ruins of Argus was a pretty big anti-sniper map due to LoS blockers all over the place. That was my home-ground map back then, and I still love the gameplay that map presents. You pick a big map as chaos with no line of sight blockers, well - to bad for you, you're going to have a bad time.
Any other RTS game really had the same iconic issues, Starcraft 1 had that all the way through-out until it's "untimely end", and Starcraft 2 still has it, and that game still has issues. You just can't design a map that will neccasarily benefit all factions/playstyles accordingly. But it's nontheless, a good practice ground to get better at if you're not experienced with it.
I remembered doing an interview with TASK3R a while back, and the most favorite map for the 1v1 "competetive-scene" was actually Outer Reaches. People felt they struggled during the early-game pressure "good" players could do, so it was more or less a very "risk-taking" map or "handshake" to a degree that both players would play it out during mid-game. Sure the map has some pathing issues, but vehicles still saw play very often in the game, you'd just have to accept the game mechanics for what they are, and it's not really going to change.
Perfect balance is achievable with time but obviously as every perfect thing it would reach a level of stagnation, and this mod months ago was closer to it than ever, and now much more far.
I'll have to disagree. There will most likely always be issues abound that will need fixing, and there's some factor that gets overlooked which results in something hamperining the progression of the games balance. It should always be workeable nontheless, and it shouldnt' be an insta-GG no re, and I don't feel this is the case in the game at this state.
Besides that, the gamers/communities are percieving game balance and "competetive" different now from what they were 5-10 years ago. Starcraf 1/WC3 had a fair share of troubles all-through out their history, yet they were played competetively. The big deciding factor is ultimately;
- Who is going to sponsor these events?
- Quantities of players playing - (You'll need to attract an audience to make an e-sport game work)
League of Legends is a game that thrives of quantity based players, and has poor general balance. There's like 20-30 champions in that game that are almost a neccassity for good results, whereas the other misc. 70-80 champions are more of a burden, half-arsed champions that don't fit into the meta, and the game is seeing large gameplay changes regulary. Still, it's the most successful e-sport game in terms of money pool & viewercounts
Let's just spin the ball, and say that Dawn of War 3 comes out, and it sells well. (Eventho the market is niché) and gets great player-counts. There's bound to be someone that is willing to sponsor events, be that either from an outside source that is not related to Relic/SEGA that is fond of the game, and gives the player time to accumulate some potential "competetive-players" then just pick them into a pit so they fight it out, and stream that stuff + marketing it.
Thus, a competetive-scene is born. And from there, anything can happend. But what's more important is also that the game balance should be "accepetable", whereas Dawn of War 2 had an EXTREMELY rough launch, which I believe is what ultimately killed it off. If it had shipped at a better state, I believe it would have fared much better, since there was genuine interest to begin with.
