|
Do you think there should be any discussion on these forums about Starcraft 2 balance?
My opinion violently vascillates. One day, I'll argue that refusing to discuss balance is sticking your head in the sand and presuming Blizzard to be infallible. The next day, I'll want to physically assault anyone who mentions balance, even if he's a tight rope walker.
What bothers me most about balance talk is that I can't trust anyone's opinions on it. Professional players understand that Blizzard listens to them, so they're constantly lobbying for buffs for their race. To use the Dreamhack Invitational Live Report thread as an example, I can perfectly predict the professional players' opinions on whether Protoss versus Zerg is balanced based on their race. On the other hand, regarding amateur players, they simply don't know enough about the game to make intelligent comments.
I bring up this issue now because I'm infuriated about the balance discussion in the aforementioned Dreamhack Invitational Live Report thread. The tournament has been run so well, and the games have been so exciting, for whatever reason I simply can't stand the calls to nerf Protoss. Of course, I'm a Protoss...
Should there be discussion about Starcraft 2 balance on Teamliquid? If so, where? Should it be confined to the SC2 General and SC2 Strategy forums? Should it be allowed in live report threads? What do you think?
 
|
No. 98% of people are too terrible to comment on it, and the other 2% have a vested interest to make as much noise as possible, as stated. Plus, allowing those discussions feeds into that stupid stupid habit of blaming losses on everything but yourself.
|
United States17042 Posts
|
You and Hawk pretty much covered everything. I guess the best thing to do is to block it out of your mind.
|
It does look like a website feedback thread, but I'm not really interested in suggesting anything to the site staff. They've been doing what they feel is right for past couple of months. I'm just wondering what other people think.
|
Everyone is terrible. That is why I refuse to accept tournament results and any metagame statistic as proof of balance. Expert opinions are the closest thing we have to perfect play because it is the best idea of what perfect play is.
Another reason tournament results dont matter is that mindgames exist. These give an advantage to a clever player and doesn't reflect balance at all.
Balance is something that is impossible to discuss without replays. To figure out the state of the game you'd probably have to watch over a thousand replays to fully understand. It is too much and the game changes when blizzard patches it.
Anyway, expert players say P is overpowered, and since that is the closest thing I have to perfect play in sc2, and I don't have any evidence suggesting the contrary, I agree.
|
I agree. There are too many idiots who just cry about balance issues. If the game is broken, Blizzard will fix it. It's not an easy job to perfectly balance a game. Because if you nerf one thing, something that wasn't viable before can now be OP against it. There is a lot of testing and thinking that needs to go on to make changes. Let alone Blizzard is constantly working on new games, other games, and a million other things.
TL;DR- The game will get there whether people bitch about it or not. Trust Blizzard
|
I tend to agree with Roie that you can't rely on tournament/ladder data, but it is a useful point in identifying issues. We can point to tournament results, specific games, and ladder data and say, I think there might be an issue in X/Y/Z match-up. In each of those cases players could just play better, but it does clue us in to the idea that as a whole something may be wrong. This is especially the case when data consistently points towards the same conclusion.
But something isn't enough to go on, from there we should be capable of backing up the concerns with actual facts/data/analysis/user experiences that can support what we're looking at.
Personally I think we can back up many of the current balance questions with actual data (re: Lalush's macro post) and possibly refute other complaints with a bit of reasonable doubt, but that's not the point of this thread I suppose.
I agree. There are too many idiots who just cry about balance issues
That completely marginalizes the effects of balance. At the top level balance issues can mean a lot for the players as they have monetary gain at stake. For everyone else, balance issues can be a big block in improvement as it reduces the relationship between your improvements and how often you win. In an even match-up (like your mirror) any improvement in play will almost always immediately show a correlated increase in your success. With an imbalanced matchup (or one that is at least perceived as imbalance) your improvements can often be overshadowed by the situation and it's harder to keep focused and motivated or to internalize your improvements. A great example would be the old map pool where 10%-20% of the maps were something like Jungle and then you had something like a 12-15% chance to draw close Metal/LT. Having to play from immediate disadvantages so often really ate away at your ability to stay positive and focused.
|
The problem with discussion about balance is that no one will ever change their opinion through the discussion. It's not really a discussion, it's just an argument. And it's not productive at all.
|
The thing is, most of it's pretty much the same as say.....FOX news' with their talking points and crap.
If I try to say, hey if you're having problems with forcefields, try burrowed roaches, or in the case of the "4 gate of doom" just engage and back off once or twice while he's moving out, have him waste a few forcefields, and by the time you have the showdown, you could very well have an advantage.
I get met with a very teapartyesque "NOPE NOPE NOPE, NONE OF THAT WORKS DERP"
If I try to say using 7 broodlords to go hit some probes by taking them away from support of your army entirely, and then throwing pure hydralisks into a choke vs storms and colossi was stupid....
I get met with "Nope nope nope, zerg was ahead in food and has more bases and workers, so obviously zerg was outplaying that guy, it's just that protoss is broken that he lost, not his horrible choice in positioning and unit composition."
It's nearly the point of cult level status. Protoss isn't broken or "OP" the zerg mindset is what is broken. Until they fix that, and stop losing games before they even play them, they will never be able to compete.
Has 0 to do with in game anything. Time and time again zerg has shown that with proper positioning, and something like some good fungles with banebombs and ling/ultra support WRECKS the deathball and smashes on through the victory, or that the 6 gate sentry push of doom falls over and dies to burrowed roaches.
We need some kind of intervention......
|
On April 13 2011 05:04 Enervate wrote:
The problem with discussion about balance is that no one will ever change their opinion through the discussion. It's not really a discussion, it's just an argument. And it's not productive at all.
Agreed.
SC2 is getting so big that the "vocal minority" is getting quite large and I'm almost to the point where I don't even want to browse forums anymore.
|
On April 13 2011 05:08 N3rV[Green] wrote:
The thing is, most of it's pretty much the same as say.....FOX news' with their talking points and crap.
If I try to say, hey if you're having problems with forcefields, try burrowed roaches, or in the case of the "4 gate of doom" just engage and back off once or twice while he's moving out, have him waste a few forcefields, and by the time you have the showdown, you could very well have an advantage.
I get met with a very teapartyesque "NOPE NOPE NOPE, NONE OF THAT WORKS DERP"
If I try to say using 7 broodlords to go hit some probes by taking them away from support of your army entirely, and then throwing pure hydralisks into a choke vs storms and colossi was stupid....
I get met with "Nope nope nope, zerg was ahead in food and has more bases and workers, so obviously zerg was outplaying that guy, it's just that protoss is broken that he lost, not his horrible choice in positioning and unit composition."
It's nearly the point of cult level status. Protoss isn't broken or "OP" the zerg mindset is what is broken. Until they fix that, and stop losing games before they even play them, they will never be able to compete.
Has 0 to do with in game anything. Time and time again zerg has shown that with proper positioning, and something like some good fungles with banebombs and ling/ultra support WRECKS the deathball and smashes on through the victory, or that the 6 gate sentry push of doom falls over and dies to burrowed roaches.
We need some kind of intervention......
Well this is part of the problem with balance discussion too. So many people (both sides) try to reduce racial problems down to a single unit or strategy when stuff is really more complex. Z, for example, can handle any singular thing Protoss does in theory. That's not an issue at all. The issue is handling the sum of Protoss as a race and what things each side actually brings to the table in terms of racial advantages. A big problem for a lot of Z players for example, (not saying it's necessarily imbalanced as that'd need a bigger discussion) would be that many P timings end up being contradictory in their responses combined with a relatively high level of flexibility in P compositions (for example double robo gives P the ability to switch from a colossi heavy to a 0 colossi army very fast which has a severe effect on battles).
|
Balance has a lot to do with the ever changing audience of StarCraft.
I would argue that the average age of people that play SC2 is significantly lower than that of those who play BW. And this difference carries over into the online community.
And not to step on toes, but I think a higher percentage of younger people can be vastly more stubborn(ignorant) than older players.
This is where it gets tricky because they get entangled in a discussion and all hell breaks loose. You can't win an argument with someone who is to ignorant (or fickle) to care.
Edit: Not the main problem with the discussions, but I will argue heavily that it contributes.
|
|
|
No. Balance "discussion" can stay on the battle.net forums for all I care.
|
I think there should be a place for balance discussions where actual pros give their arguments. Balance right now is a shamed upon thing on these forums but everywhere we turn, pro games and everybody are talking about it. GSL tries to censor it out as well, but even MC agreed there is imbalance in his July vs MC finals interview.
Trying to cover up the obvious I feel is hurting the game. Sure there are a few pros who hate it (mostly protoss) but I feel it is actually very good for the growth of the game. I am sure Blizzard pays attention to their forums and the whine, which is good and bad but right now where is the only place you can really look at balance whining? B.net forums. Everyone knows b.net forums are trash, and even here most of it is trash, but when a player like MYM.Cloud, Idra, or even MC says something about imbalance, I feel we should be able to talk about it and discuss it.
It is a brand new game in terms of SC:BW, there WILL BE IMBALANCES, this is SC2, not SC:BW, there will be imbalances in a new game. Why can't the biggest and best forum/fansite for SC2 be allowed to talk about it? We need thorough discussions, not just Liquid'Tyler cursing out someone who says Protoss is imbalanced, where no one really has the courage to respond/argue in fear of ban etc.
Forum is made to talk about stuff publically. Everyone talks about balance anyways, why not just make a subforum or some place you can publically discuss it? Sure you'd have to moderate the trolls/bronze(?) players out who just say silly things, but if high level players actually discuss it, I think it would be good for everything. Lord knows Blizzard can't get any good ideas from bnet forums.
Sorry if I repeated anything in this, I had to pause writing it in the middle
|
Hungary11289 Posts
I have two issues concerning balance, one concerning players, one concerning viewers.
If you, as a player, spend too much time on considering balance, you are keeping yourself from getting better. Instead of blaming yourself for your failure and looking for a solution, you seek out an external reason and make it your scapegoat, which effectively holds you back.
For viewers and especially for fellow readers of the LR, the experience is similar. I am watching Starcraft to discover something new each game and to see how it unfolds. If you make every part of the game a 'proof of imbalance', you are basically missing everything else. You are preventing yourself from having a richer viewing experience.
It's similar to discussing a chess game with others and they would only talk about how white has such a big advantage by making the first move. Everybody KNOWS there are differences. But it's the least interesting thing to talk about.
|
No, there shouldn't be balance discussions on TL for 2 reasons:
1- This site will turn into something like gosugamers replay section or even worse, b.net forums
2- I need reasons to still go to these aforementioned sites (after seeing my favorite players lose, I need to outrage at some place).
|
On April 13 2011 05:08 N3rV[Green] wrote:
The thing is, most of it's pretty much the same as say.....FOX news' with their talking points and crap.
If I try to say, hey if you're having problems with forcefields, try burrowed roaches, or in the case of the "4 gate of doom" just engage and back off once or twice while he's moving out, have him waste a few forcefields, and by the time you have the showdown, you could very well have an advantage.
I get met with a very teapartyesque "NOPE NOPE NOPE, NONE OF THAT WORKS DERP"
If I try to say using 7 broodlords to go hit some probes by taking them away from support of your army entirely, and then throwing pure hydralisks into a choke vs storms and colossi was stupid....
I get met with "Nope nope nope, zerg was ahead in food and has more bases and workers, so obviously zerg was outplaying that guy, it's just that protoss is broken that he lost, not his horrible choice in positioning and unit composition."
It's nearly the point of cult level status. Protoss isn't broken or "OP" the zerg mindset is what is broken. Until they fix that, and stop losing games before they even play them, they will never be able to compete.
Has 0 to do with in game anything. Time and time again zerg has shown that with proper positioning, and something like some good fungles with banebombs and ling/ultra support WRECKS the deathball and smashes on through the victory, or that the 6 gate sentry push of doom falls over and dies to burrowed roaches.
We need some kind of intervention......
See, I would argue you're doing exactly what you're complaining about. Your position is "I'm right and they're wrong and they're just too dumb and whiny and ignorant and uncreative to listen to the sc2 gospel I have to preach. Banelings roaches speedlings broodlords ultras, goddamnit!" You have talking points just like FOX news in your terrible analogy; I imagine you as Bill O'reilly calling all the Z's pinhead stoned slackers. Well guess what, I see half the protoss players I meet on ladder as annoying nerds salivating at the idea of drawing a game vs zerg so they can exhibit the masterful creative genius that are their strategic military decisions. Think JP from grandma's boy: "I stomped this nerd because I was inspired by a divine spirit to cut 1 more chrono on probes when I put down my 3rd gate so I can get blink 8 seconds sooner. I am the chosen one. Hatcheries crumble before me." Constant all ins that clearly require far superior skill and luck to scout and stop than to execute. All ins aren't my only beef either.
Not that we don't see it on the other side, obviously. I wish Idra didn't 6pool that game today. I wish zergs didn't spam the live report threads with imbalance discussion. I wish zergs didn't have such a defeatist attitude.
Here's my biased opinion, just like everyone else's:
There are 2 prevailing opinions:
1. The game is imbalanced (all the zergs and from what I heard on the DH cast today, some terran complaints now too?)
2. Humans who choose to play the zerg race, as a whole entire third of the sc2 community, are natural-born complainers that are just simply inferior to humans who choose to play protoss in the areas of creativity and adaptation.
Now which one of those is more crazy? Especially considering the clear periods of imbalance and corresponding patches in this games young history, I think the answer's obvious.
Do you really think that zergs are going to complain until they're OP as fuck? Do you really think protoss players wouldn't complain if they thought toss was UP? Do you really think fruitdealer getting an easy bracket, 6pooling inca, and winning a GSL 6 months ago and never doing anything notable again is justification to not taking a hard look at balance now? Do you really think Idra, the guy who was arguably the best foreigner in BW, who devoted his life to sc and moved to korea at 18 and endured a life he hated in prohouses to become the best that he could be hasn't tried using infestors? Do you really think Idra is such a meta nerd that he chooses to half-ass things because it will be easier to just get blizzard to buff zerg so he can win in a couple years? Do you really not realize how the line is clearly divided: protoss players think the game is fine, zerg player think they are UP?
Forget anything ingame, there's clearly something wrong here because these are the vibes I'm getting. No, I don't think balance should be discussed in live report threads, but it definitely needs to be discussed somewhere otherwise threads will continue to devolve into conversations just like this one. Players have a heavy emotional involvement in this game because we devote so much time and energy into trying to improve. It sucks to see yourself work so hard and then not get results because the game favors your opponent. It sucks having other players say they deserve more than the game has given them is offensive because, hey, I worked hard too. It would be nice if we could all acknowledge this.
|
To the poster above...
Not every zerg thinks the games imbalanced. I personally have never felt that anythings "imbalanced", we just need to find the right response.
Even in the dark "Reaper OP" ages, zerg's were just beginning to find an adequate response to it (14 gas 14 pool).
The only thing I ever felt was OP was collusus voidray, and I'm pretty sure most people would agree with me on that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
