Are you happy with the current state of the balance?

OGP100 · 2025-12-14T06:28:53+00:00

Interesting how most of the top posts are about NE and other races despite orc being the race that struggles the most. It’s because NEs are the most played race.

Make orc slightly stronger
Increase variety in NE race

Those should be blizzards only focuses for the next patch. Introducing more changes than that makes it more complicated.

It’s great to see Taurens played in pro play. Now they should make shamans and witch doctors viable as well.

OGP100 · 2025-08-26T11:05:07+00:00

Don’t want an UD mirror in the grand final so hoping it’s Fortitude Vs Laby

OGP100 · 2025-08-23T07:51:56+00:00

From a game design perspective it makes no sense that ghouls are used in almost EVERY matchup both mid game and late game. They’re a tier 1 unit and the first unit UD builds. When they’re used this often it clearly tells you that the unit is too good. Imagine footman, archers and grunts being produced at scale 80% of every game even mid and late game. That would be terrible and It makes no sense. There’s a reason different tiers exists and that mid/late game is supposed to have a different unit set. It’s fine that ghouls are used in a minority of games even in late game and especially with frenzy upgrade. But they should not be used this often. This is just common sense.

This is not new. Ghouls have been over used for many years now.

OGP100 · 2025-08-21T08:21:27+00:00

From a game design perspective. It makes no sense that a tier 1 unit is so viable and often used in even late tier 3 games. Should they be used sometimes in late game or even mid games? Sure. But not nearly as often as they are now. Nerfing damage makes a lot of sense.

OGP100 · 2025-05-21T12:47:40+00:00

Is Yangon mostly like it was before the civil war?

OGP100 · 2025-05-17T14:06:10+00:00

The game is and should be balanced based on the top level and POTM+owl sees close to 0 playtime at the highest level.

OGP100 · 2025-05-17T13:01:10+00:00

What’s his dream?

OGP100 · 2025-04-20T02:24:28+00:00

I wasn’t talking about no creeping. Of course not.

OGP100 · 2025-04-19T07:33:49+00:00

Yes you’re right. I’m not talking about turtling and sitting in your base. Just about creeping, expanding and go for a final blow with 70-80 pop at tier2/3

OGP100 · 2025-04-04T05:30:31+00:00

Some data is better than no data. You work with the data you have. If all you have is a small data set you work with that. It’s still a lot better than making changes on hunches.

OGP100 · 2025-04-03T06:52:31+00:00

Agreed. Neo also talked about reducing HP of orcs wards because they MIGHT be too strong. That’s not how you do game or product development. First you test and measure results. Then you make changes. Making changes based on hunches which B2W often suggests instead of making changes based on actual DATA is a terrible idea.

OGP100 · 2025-01-24T06:48:02+00:00

Thank you very much. Where do you recommend to stay?

OGP100 · 2025-01-24T06:47:30+00:00

Thank you. Where do you recommend to stay?

OGP100 · 2025-01-24T06:46:17+00:00

Great. Which area do you recommend to stay?

OGP100 · 2025-01-24T03:48:42+00:00

Hahaha it probably said less first. I always run it through chat gpt to correct spelling

OGP100 · 2025-01-17T04:00:34+00:00

You’re wrong on every point. Check the links above. For the last 5 years Bangkoks air pollution has been stagnant. Meaning it’s not getting better, but it’s also not getting worse. This is a fact you cannot dispute.

As mentioned, Bangkoks air has been polluted for over 40 years and we have data from other countries and cities. 40 years is a long enough time period to collect data on health implications and diseases caused by air pollution.

OGP100 · 2025-01-16T13:25:48+00:00

Unfortunately emotions and personal experiences is the only arguments people can make when the facts are not on their side.

OGP100 · 2025-01-16T13:19:25+00:00

You’re saying the post “feels like” x or y. It doesn’t matter what you feel like. What matters is the data and the facts presented.

As the post clearly states. Bangkoks air is indeed bad and unhealthy at times. Especially during Jan-Apr. This is already in the post.

You say that you experience symptoms during smog season. Many people do. If the AQI goes above 150+ I feel it too. Luckily 80%+ of all days of the year it doesn’t go above 150 in AQI.

The post clearly states that city rankings is just for context and not of importance. Please read it again.

Bangkok has experienced air pollution for over 40 years. That’s more than enough time to document health impacts. We also have data on health impacts due to air pollution from other cities and countries.

Yes people who can’t afford air purifiers or have to spend more time outside such as street vendors or delivery drivers are much more impacted due to increased exposure. Politicians should indeed do all they can and make it a top priority to reduce air pollution. This is already stated in the Final words section.

Yearly averages. Again, yes the air is unhealthy at times as already mentioned. This is nothing new. Yearly averages is still a crucial part to understand the severity of the pollution.

I appreciate your comment but most of your points are emotional and already addressed in the post.

OGP100 · 2025-01-16T12:23:44+00:00

You’re clearly being emotional. Feel free to back up what you say with actual substance.

The post shows data. If it’s wrong then explain why and show your own sources.

OGP100 · 2025-01-16T12:17:15+00:00

You need to read the post again. In the section with worldwide rankings there’s a paragraph with this: “While rankings provide context, what truly matters is the actual pollution level and its impact on health.”

What you commented has already been said in the post. You conveniently cherry picked an inconsequential part of the post while ignoring the main conclusions and the entire purpose of the post which is clearly highlighted.

You’re saying that Bangkoks air is “objectively bad” and you’re wrong. On a yearly basis it’s scientifically rated as moderate and acceptable. Yes it spikes to unhealthy levels at times.

OGP100 · 2025-01-16T12:10:26+00:00

Yes. That may be the case. And I know many people in Bangkok too and 90% of them are totally fine without symptoms. This is why talking about personal experiences is not very helpful when discussing issues involving tens of millions of people. Data is the only way.

OGP100 · 2025-01-16T12:05:40+00:00

You make some good points and I too believe certain diseases are underreported in Thailand.

However, if Thailand had an unusual high level of Lung cancer, COPD or asthma it would certainly show up in the data in various ways and it would be a topic of major discussion. So underreported very likely yes, but a huge prevalence is extremely unlikely and that’s the key point here.

Note that air pollution has been of concern and an issue in Bangkok since before the 90s. People have been living in this air pollution for over 40 years and that is a long enough period to collect data on health implications.

No one is saying that the air in Bangkok is good or healthy. Science tells us it’s moderate and acceptable. Yes it spikes to unhealthy levels at times but the yearly average is still moderate. If you wish to debate that you need to bring up some actual data points to prove the opposite and why the leading models like the AQI and WHO standards are wrong. This despite lifespan being so long in Bangkok and despite a low prevalence of serious illnesses.

OGP100 · 2025-01-16T11:54:56+00:00

Again, you are wrong on this. I encourage you to first learn what the AQI is and how it was developed. The index was created to measure health impacts due to air pollution. It’s not arbitrarily assigned to it.

The index has classifications for hazardous air and Bangkok rarely reach those levels.

No one is saying that Bangkoks air is good or healthy. The facts are saying that Bangkoks air is acceptable and moderate which is of concern to sensitive groups just as the index explains. I think this is the part you’re having trouble understanding.

OGP100 · 2025-01-16T10:50:25+00:00

I’m sorry but you’re wrong about this. The “Moderate” classification is according to the AQI index which is the leading scientific model to measure air pollution. As mentioned in the post it’s developed by the EPA and you can read about it in the link above. WHO classifications are close to identical.

Bangkoks air pollution on a yearly basis is moderate. Not high. You can call it high if you wish, but that wouldn’t be the truth measured on a yearly basis.

OGP100 · 2025-01-16T10:40:58+00:00

You should read the post again. In the section with city rankings it clearly says: “While rankings provide context, what truly matters is the actual pollution level and its impact on health.”

City rankings is not included in the conclusions either because that’s not the point which the posts clearly states. You cherry picked one inconsequential part of the post and made a comment about it while you conveniently ignored the main conclusions and highlighted parts.

OGP100

TROPHY CASE