|
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
|
Hungary11291 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.
|
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.
|
Hungary11291 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.
|
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.
This is the attitude I don't get, and one of the reasons I think it's so hard to have a productive discussion on this issue. Why should the fact that there is room for improvement in my play - as is true for ALL players, regardless of skill level - mean that I don't have a "right" to discuss balance? Honestly, you do not need to be able to play like a progamer to understand how the game works.
That kind of attitude - a claim of entitlement and ownership over a topic like balance - is one of the main reasons why this discussion stays unproductive. It's also a reason why people are so unwilling to change their minds.
|
United States22883 Posts
On April 14 2011 03:40 Vlare wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2011 02:13 Jibba wrote: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.
Yes, he does. But he doesn't actually understand the game very well. He just does the same cheese and 4gate rush over and over, and it usually works against the medium-high people, and doesn't work against high level people. But since he plays 2-3x more games than everyone else, it's ok.
This is the attitude I don't get, and one of the reasons I think it's so hard to have a productive discussion on this issue. Why should the fact that there is room for improvement in my play - as is true for ALL players, regardless of skill level - mean that I don't have a "right" to discuss balance? Honestly, you do not need to be able to play like a progamer to understand how the game works. There's no way to convince you otherwise, but neither you nor I know enough about SC2 to competently discuss balance. People tend to believe they're a lot smarter/knowledgeable than they actually are, and this is especially true since WoW came out and now in SC2. If someone in 12th grade is stuck on a differential equation and you're in 6th grade algebra, you can't complain to them that math is too difficult or makes no sense because you have no idea what you're talking about.
When you lose games at the Gold level, it's not because of balance. It's because you're not good enough, and there's 1,000 things you should've done better to win.
EDIT: And to reiterate what the SotG guys said last night, they're still that 12th grader who has a long way to go. I think Day9 was pretty careful to say that he doesn't know if the game is balanced or imbalanced, just that a lot of territory is unexplored.
|
On April 14 2011 05:22 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2011 03:40 Vlare wrote:On April 14 2011 02:13 Jibba wrote: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. Yes, he does. But he doesn't actually understand the game very well. He just does the same cheese and 4gate rush over and over, and it usually works against the medium-high people, and doesn't work against high level people. But since he plays 2-3x more games than everyone else, it's ok. Show nested quote +This is the attitude I don't get, and one of the reasons I think it's so hard to have a productive discussion on this issue. Why should the fact that there is room for improvement in my play - as is true for ALL players, regardless of skill level - mean that I don't have a "right" to discuss balance? Honestly, you do not need to be able to play like a progamer to understand how the game works. There's no way to convince you otherwise, but neither you nor I know enough about SC2 to competently discuss balance. People tend to believe they're a lot smarter/knowledgeable than they actually are, and this is especially true since WoW came out and now in SC2. If someone in 12th grade is stuck on a differential equation and you're in 6th grade algebra, you can't complain to them that math is too difficult or makes no sense because you have no idea what you're talking about. When you lose games at the Gold level, it's not because of balance. It's because you're not good enough, and there's 1,000 things you should've done better to win.
Not to mention, he has this nasty habit of being an dishonest player and asking for a favor once in a while...
>.>
Combat-ex isn't good. He just plays a lot. it's like Jibba said - winning != skill != understanding of the game. In this case, Combat-ex just wins - and not against great players in tournament settings.
|
I have a suggestion for FF, I think it has been discussed before like a year ago. A lot of zergs complain about force field these days, usually because it ruins their game when they clearly had a superior force. The suggestion for balance is to make the FF a building with 1000 hp and +1 shield (might need adjustment). This would allow zergs to destroy the force field and attack, winning if they are superior and lucky, but if army's are even, or close to even, zergs will take heavy losses in trying to break the force field.
I believe this works to balance PvZ because in possibly losing many units as a zerg when FF is used against you, you can still macro faster and win if your mechanics are strong. Toss still should not lose as many units, like they do now when FF is used right, and they will still be able to macro with the zerg if their mechanics are strong.
Using FF to block the ramp would sometimes lower bane count when the z is dumb enough to crash into them; this perhaps because he thinks he can take your units with his lings.But this means as P you won't be able to FF your ramp (or his if your at the expo) forever.
I think this is the only balance needed for PvZ right now... well, I was thinking about suggesting Chrono= 50 energy and you would have to purchase an upgrade to lower cost, but I think if this is considered a good change, we should see how it effects the match up first.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
