|
On April 13 2011 06:10 Aesop wrote:
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.
I agree that everything shouldn't be brought back to balance, but I think its specificlly for zerg players. All of our heros haven QUICKLY and sadly fallen from grace. Every tournament is P or T in the finals, there is no one to look up to as Zerg. There is no way its because T/P are better than Z currently, its obviously imbalance at the highest level. I feel if we broke down and discussed imbalance with a high level match/replay it should be fine, but definitely not with Huko vs XxProtossxX where we both suck.
Protoss and Terran both have their players doing VERY VERY well, not one Zerg is doing well in any major tournament, its definately not because all Zerg players suck. I believe there should be a place for imbalance talk, but like you mentioned, I feel the majority of it will be people making excuses for why they lost.
|
On April 13 2011 06:10 Aesop wrote:
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.
I agree, but you make it sound easier than it is. It's not like Zerg players try to focus on balance. Whenever I sit down to play I constantly tell and remind myself to focus on getting better and to focus on the stuff I can do to get better. When I come on TL or load up a stream I first head towards information that cna help me become a better player, not stuff talking about imbalance.
Yet its still constantly there. You still have plenty of big advantages blown, lose from only minor setbacks, instant losses from missed scouting (while your opponent doesn't scout at all), late game stalemates that lead into starvation, 20-30 minute games when you have insane early game advantages that you can't use to end the game, Protoss' who never use chronoboost past 5:00 (even in mid-Masters you see this all...the...time), 'Hero' T/P units (what's the last hero Z unit you saw?), etc. The more you play/watch the more it just bubbles up even if you don't want it to.
I mean really I just want the game to feel more balanced so I can actually focus on winning without having to focus on focusing on winning.
|
Hungary11305 Posts
On April 13 2011 06:25 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2011 06:10 Aesop wrote:
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. Yet its still constantly there. You still have plenty of big advantages blown, lose from only minor setbacks, instant losses from missed scouting (while your opponent doesn't scout at all), late game stalemates that lead into starvation, 20-30 minute games when you have insane early game advantages that you can't use to end the game, Protoss' who never use chronoboost past 5:00 (even in mid-Masters you see this all...the...time), 'Hero' T/P units (what's the last hero Z unit you saw?), etc. The more you play/watch the more it just bubbles up even if you don't want it to.
I cannot look inside your head to see if it's really "constantly there". I am just under the impression that, once you open the floodgates for that feeling that it's actually balance that's causing your losses, the way through there is just too easy and the feeling gets just too pervasive. I do not even want to discuss if there 'is' something like imbalance. I just want to point out that focussing on the "feeling of imbalance" draws away your resources from other areas of focus.
|
The only imbalance I see is in QQing. Zergs QQ 10x more than the other two races, despite posting very good results in every metric.
I think it mostly is due to the fact that Zerg's strengths are intangible (massive vision with creep and overlord spread, best production capacity, silo'd tech tree, creep speed bonus). It seems like most Zergs expect a 200 food Zerg army to equal a 200 food Protoss/Terran army, which is stupid. They cry about cost efficiency without considering their many other unique strengths.
Yes warpin and forcefields are ridiculously imbalanced. So are mules and marines. So is creep and larvae inject. This wouldnt be a very fun game if all the races played basically the same. Its sorta the situation where you want each races imbalances canceling each other out. And I think blizzards done a great job of that thus far. The only change I think the game really needs are better early game scouting options -- for all 3 races (yes terran too, inb4 people cry about scan).
|
I think there's a place for it, but it needs to be of a higher standard. Think of the moderation in the strategy section, but even stricter.
On April 13 2011 06:53 kNightLite wrote:
The only imbalance I see is in QQing. Zergs QQ 10x more than the other two races, despite posting very good results in every metric.
I think it mostly is due to the fact that Zerg's strengths are intangible (massive vision with creep and overlord spread, best production capacity, silo'd tech tree, creep speed bonus). It seems like most Zergs expect a 200 food Zerg army to equal a 200 food Protoss/Terran army, which is stupid. They cry about cost efficiency without considering their many other unique strengths.
Yes Zergs are QQing more. It could be unfounded, but it could also be well founded. You know what I think is stupid? Seeing a Protoss, time and time again, kill 100+ supply worth of Zerg units while losing about 20. Yes a Protoss army should be stronger late game, but should it be that much stronger? I think Zerg could be a lot stronger without ZvP being imbalanced in the favour of Z.
Roaches at 2 supply just makes for such an incredibly weak army, and Corruptors are way way worse than Vikings even though they cost more and Terran always has more supply to use for his army because of Mules and T still has trouble with Colossi sometimes. Z can win in ZvP, but I think the matchup could be made a lot more even.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
There is a good reason why Balance threads are forbidden, and why 1 of the only balance threads on the forum is the one from Artosis and Idra, yet that thread has to be moderated closely(like every post). Now imagine everyone going rampant, it is not construsctive as most people will list X is OP because, and other people will say Y is OP because. Neither side will give in, and either way so what if a unit is deemed OP, how are you going to attribute ANYTHING by stating its OP?. The only things you attract are flamers from both sides.
|
I think this is a fascinating question, mostly because of the consistent failure of SC2 players to be able to discuss it civilly. I realize that most of us have some kind of ground staked out – we all have our race, and none of us want to see our race nerfed. More importantly, though, I don’t think any of us want the quality of our victories questioned by issues of “balance.”
But it seems like SC2 players take the issue of balance really, really personally.
My biggest problem with the whole balance debate is the argument that “people aren’t good enough to have an opinion” – underlying this claim is the idea that this game is played at only the highest levels, and that all issues of balance should be resolved only at the highest levels. I think that the whole spectrum of players experience exactly the same balance issues on faster or slower scales. You don’t need to be a master level player to spam force fields, thor drop Kulas Ravine, or … I don’t know what the zerg equivalent is. And the battle.net matching system is good at pairing us with people who’re bad enough at whatever potentially-OP strategy that we’ll win 50% of the time…eventually.
The point, is, though, that this game isn’t played just at the highest levels – in fact, if anything, I think balance matters MORE at the lower levels. It’s true that, back in the day, zergs were figuring out how to survive the 5 rax reaper rush…it was just really, really hard to do that without getting behind. But you could do it if you executed it JUST RIGHT. I just have a real problem with the idea that the existence of a solution negates the issue of balance.
Take, for instance, N3rV[Green]’s zerg solution to the deathball (above):
“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…”
Wow.
1) Proper positioning,
2) fungal growth,
3) banebombs,
4) Ling/Ultra support.
That sounds hard to execute. Or at least, a lot harder than building a deathball and 1Aing it in with forcefield micro. Of course, that’s simplifying the deathball and the challenge of building it. But the point that I want to make is that, while the handful of IdrAs of the world can do that…I don’t think I can. I also don’t think the fact that IdrA can defend it ends the balance question.
I agree that these forums probably aren’t a place where we can have a mature and productive conversation about balance. And I think we should all admit that’s a community problem. But I don’t see why we couldn’t have a productive conversation about what, objectively, it would MEAN to have a balanced game. I think that’s a conversation from which we could all benefit.
TL;DR – Balance affects everyone, and it’s a pity we aren’t mature enough to discuss it civilly. Maybe we move towards that by talking about exactly what a balanced game would look like in the abstract. Also, try reading a post. You don't need a summary.
|
Almost everyone who discusses balance has a vested interest in getting their race buffed or another race nerfed for personal gain so it's hard for me to take anyone who discusses it seriously. People try to make themselves reasonable or scientific sounding but they cannot ever remove the bias they have so it ends up being baloney in one way or another.
Too often is balance discussion from an emotional perspective, in that people get upset and angry because something is so overpowered to them. They feel like they have hit a brick wall in a game that has not even been out a year and instead of hammering out new ideas or mechanics they feel that their only option is to appeal to blizzard while proselytizing their message to all the evil people who abuse imbalance.
I guess i would say that i don't know everything about SC2, so why would i take the time to write complaints on message boards when i could be learning more about SC2?
|
Personally, I don't mind a mature discussion about imbalance. I do, however, mind discussion about imbalance from stupid people. Unfortunately, whenever 99% of the people on TL talk about imbalance, they become stupid.
So I guess there is no winning.
|
I think any discussion on balance has to be couched in awareness for the newness of the game. Due to its dynamic nature and competitive setup, Starcraft 2 balance has to be approached carefully. This is not tic-tac-toe, where we KNOW that going second makes winning impossible. Starcraft 2 is not World of Warcraft, where balance changes can be mitigated by gear and Blizzard-generated content. Generally, players should want Blizzard to keep its hands OFF of Starcraft 2, to allow for emergent gameplay and strategic planning.
Unfortunately, many posters on Teamliquid don't tend to think deeply on the issue (or metaissue, haha.) So yeah, there's a lot of drivel.
|
Most zergs like myself are too use to the sc1 zerg where we had fast cheap units and hive tech that opened up a lot of options late game.
Now it feels like zerg is the strongest mid game so toss and terran just waits for a maxed army or near maxed army. This is unheard of in sc1 since they would try to hit zerg in a transition from lair to hive. They didnt want to fight a hive tech zerg since they were very scary.
Maybe an infestor upgrade that increases the range and radius of fg might help.
|
On April 13 2011 06:10 Aesop wrote:
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.
I don't think balance can ever be the topic of an imparial discussion. Everyone just looks after their own interests. Protoss now say that the game isn't imbalanced (Naniwa said wait 3 years and then see....lolwat??), while Zergs will tell you ZvP is a complete joke. Thing is a pro wants to make money doing this so it goes against an inherent sense of self preservation to advocate a nerf for your race. Also, Protoss players would rather not admit theyre getting wins they don't deserve against better players, and Zergs would rather not admit theyre losing because of their own flaws rather than the game's flaws.
|
I think it's just frustrating design.
In TvZ, T has to move out and put pressure on zerg or face being overwhelmed. You get exciting back and forth games, and the difficulty of Zerg attacking into chokes/ramps/simcity is mitigated by the fact Terran -must- move out.
In PvZ, P doesn't have to put pressure on the zerg beyond a little sharking (if even that). There's no such thing as being economically overwhelmed because 3-base gives an even economy. There's pretty much one shot for Zerg's to take a game that goes to the lategame, and that's the massive suicide attack followed by a remax to win. If that fails Zerg is in deep, deep trouble because the economy is even and Protoss units are so much better it's frightening. Surplus production capacity doesn't matter when economies are even and before maxed armies engage - Protoss and Zerg both have enough production to spend what they earn on 3-base economy.
So zergs everywhere are understandably frustrated that they lose, because it feels like their opponent did nothing at all (compare to a TvZ where there is constant harass and skirmishing).
And even worse, when asking for advice, they are often told they're supposed to harass the Protoss with drops. They're being asked to play like a Terran with none of the capability of doing so.
Finally, as if there was any doubt whining would ensue, Zerg has been underpowered since release - patches and maps have been specifically released to help Zerg. Add that all together and it's no surprise Zerg players are getting frustrated and whiney.
Of course, maybe it's balanced in spite of all that. Maybe there's a magic combination of infestors and something that nobody has found yet, or a way of remaxing that almost guarantees victory. Right now though, Zerg strategies aren't working in ZvP.
|
On April 13 2011 07:10 Flytrapz wrote:. I just have a real problem with the idea that the existence of a solution negates the issue of balance. Take, for instance, N3rV[Green]’s zerg solution to the deathball (above): Show nested quote +“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…” Wow. 1) Proper positioning, 2) fungal growth, 3) banebombs, 4) Ling/Ultra support. That sounds hard to execute. Or at least, a lot harder than building a deathball and 1Aing it in with forcefield micro. Of course, that’s simplifying the deathball and the challenge of building it. But the point that I want to make is that, while the handful of IdrAs of the world can do that…I don’t think I can. I also don’t think the fact that IdrA can defend it ends the balance question.
Did you ever stop to think that the reason you can't do some of these things efficiently is that maybe you aren't as good as you think you are?? There is an accepted counter, you know it, you're not good at it... and it's proof the game is whacked???
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 13 2011 07:10 Flytrapz wrote:
That sounds hard to execute. Or at least, a lot harder than building a deathball and 1Aing it in with forcefield micro. Of course, that’s simplifying the deathball and the challenge of building it. But the point that I want to make is that, while the handful of IdrAs of the world can do that…I don’t think I can. I also don’t think the fact that IdrA can defend it ends the balance question.
The game is not balanced around everyone, nor should it be. Aside from the fact that it's extremely impossible to do so, the fact of the matter is that you have no right to complain about balance when there are still a large number of things you can do to improve your game and overcome your opponent.
There is no way to find relative skill levels among bad people, and even if you could, it shouldn't matter. P was the easier race in BW, but it wasn't dominant. T had a deathball in BW but it wasn't dominant. It becomes more and more frustrating to hear IdrA/Artosis complain about a Protoss deathball, when BW's TvP lategame relied on the same principle.
|
T had a deathball in BW but it wasn't dominant. It becomes more and more frustrating to hear IdrA/Artosis complain about a Protoss deathball, when BW's TvP lategame relied on the same principle.
You know, I see that argument about T deathball in BW thrown about a lot and it is simply false. P and T both had deathballs and the only reason T seemed a little bit more deadly is because of incredible progamer spider mine positioning. Without it, it got smashed to bits in the vast majority of cases, especially with arbiters and/or storm.
But I agree that the game shouldn't be balanced around everyone. After all, it is 0.1% of the playerbase that produces 99% of the broadcasts/casts and if someone from a particular race can show good results with it, it is probably more balanced than it seems.
|
It would be nice if there were a discussion forum for balance. However, since 99% of people on tlnet are simply not on a level to be commenting on balance I think it would be full of bullshit posts. That being said, a balance discussion of say 3.7k+ players could be useful. However, I am finding that as I play these level people more and more I find that most of them are quite bad and get by on cheese :\
So I think balance discussion should be reserved for very high level players only :\
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 14 2011 01:36 Vlare wrote:
It would be nice if there were a discussion forum for balance. However, since 99% of people on tlnet are simply not on a level to be commenting on balance I think it would be full of bullshit posts. That being said, a balance discussion of say 3.7k+ players could be useful. However, I am finding that as I play these level people more and more I find that most of them are quite bad and get by on cheese :\
So I think balance discussion should be reserved for very high level players only :\
There's a weaker correlation between understanding the game and ladder ranking than most people realize. Blizzard has made a system where it's far too easy to mass game at opportune times to make yourself seem good. Case in point, Combat-Ex is the #5 GM in America.
|
Would it really be so hard to have a couple of threads devoted only to balance with intelligent, reasoned responses and lots of unit testing?
No, not really.
But the balance discussions keep infecting my damn live report threads. Seriously, like, 50% of the posts right after a game are some kind of QQ.
So basically: who cares, discuss balance all you want, keep it in a balance thread though.
Edit: Case in point, this thread already has balance discussions. This thread is not supposed to BE a balance discussion, just ABOUT balance discussions.
|
On April 14 2011 02:13 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2011 01:36 Vlare wrote:
It would be nice if there were a discussion forum for balance. However, since 99% of people on tlnet are simply not on a level to be commenting on balance I think it would be full of bullshit posts. That being said, a balance discussion of say 3.7k+ players could be useful. However, I am finding that as I play these level people more and more I find that most of them are quite bad and get by on cheese :\
So I think balance discussion should be reserved for very high level players only :\ There's a weaker correlation between understanding the game and ladder ranking than most people realize. Blizzard has made a system where it's far too easy to mass game at opportune times to make yourself seem good. Case in point, Combat-Ex is the #5 GM in America.
While combat-ex may not be super duper. He still does beat "top level people" despite what he does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
