|
On January 27 2014 11:46 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2014 10:45 FabledIntegral wrote:On January 27 2014 10:34 BigFan wrote:On January 27 2014 08:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think early/mid game zvt is at least equally hard for terran as for zerg. lategame if going bio then it's tougher for terran cuz zerg can at least semi-easily defend 4 gas while ultra herding or whatever, but lategame going mech is easier than countering it is for z also.
Also I think stuff like dark swarm and irradiate are part of what makes bw so great.. There's a whole lot seemingly totally imbalanced stuff,but somehow strategical+map evolution have made it work out superbly. like pvt, p's ability to expand and power up unhindered is totally imbalanced, but then 100 supply of terran ground does an alright job against 200 supply of protoss ground, and as long as maps are so big that protoss can actually mine more then it ends up being totally fair. ya, I love how even though some stuff is imba in BW, in the end, it all balances out somehow which is why I'm reluctant to recommend any balance changes in this thread(-2 I already mentioned lol). My mech is pretty terrible for some reason lol. I think I just don't macro well enough and every unit is needed when you mech imo. With bio, my micro can make up for my lackluster macro XD On January 27 2014 09:27 FabledIntegral wrote:On January 27 2014 08:22 BigFan wrote:On January 27 2014 08:01 FabledIntegral wrote:On January 27 2014 07:07 BigFan wrote:On January 27 2014 05:20 McRatyn wrote:On January 27 2014 05:17 BigFan wrote:On January 27 2014 03:02 miercat wrote:
[quote]
Actually, it has been currently acknowledged in the Professional Chess scene - by both players and commentators - that there are significant issues regarding professional "Classical Chess" (Chess as it is commonly known), and its viability as a competitive game. To the extent that at least discussion has begun, regarding completely phasing out competitive Classical Chess, and replacing it, with potentially more viable alternatives - e.g. Rapid, Chess960. The specifics are unclear at this time, but certainly, issues regarding gameplay are being generally acknowledged, and potential improvements are being considered.
The same concept may be applied to BW. The difference being, the changes that could be made to BW, could be relatively gentle in comparison, while vastly improving gameplay and balance.
No one can realistically claim that BW is perfect, or optimally(enough) balanced (it's probably the best game ever, but not perfect, and there are ways to improve it); the question is not- whether or not you feel BW should be patched/balanced (personal feelings on this matter are essentially irrelevant), the question is, are there significant imbalances - and are there there ways to ameliorate these imbalances, in a way that improves the quality of certain matchups, while leaving intact- the quality of other matchups. Statistical analysis shows that the answer to the former is yes. And finding suitable "patches" to ameliorate significant balance issues, is certainly not the most practically difficult thing to do (e.g. it is potentially eminently possible, at least in some regards).
based on what I've read and played with, I think the 'major' balance changes that should be made are that valkyrie sprite bug that everyone talks about and possible looking into the defiler and science vessel. Things like the reaver, storm and such I think are fine since there is a chance to dodge them. At my low level, once the zerg gets to defiler tech, unless I've limited their bases and was constantly pressuring to keep their army size small, I pretty much always lose lol. Dark swarm is pretty difficult to fight against just due to how many actions you need to do(unsiege tanks, pull back while try to irridate the defiler and avoid scourage etc...). If you are pushed back to your exp(assuming it wasn't the case in the first place), it becomes hard to break. Having said that, I still enjoy playing against it so I dunno what patching can be done for it lol. It does remind me of the infestor to a degree during WoL days where once my opponent got them out in mass, I knew it was impossible to win lol >.> Defiler? You mean Winfiler? (Sorry I couldn't help it) :O balance whining! reported!  On January 27 2014 06:51 FabledIntegral wrote:On January 27 2014 05:20 McRatyn wrote:On January 27 2014 05:17 BigFan wrote:
[quote]
based on what I've read and played with, I think the 'major' balance changes that should be made are that valkyrie sprite bug that everyone talks about and possible looking into the defiler and science vessel. Things like the reaver, storm and such I think are fine since there is a chance to dodge them. At my low level, once the zerg gets to defiler tech, unless I've limited their bases and was constantly pressuring to keep their army size small, I pretty much always lose lol. Dark swarm is pretty difficult to fight against just due to how many actions you need to do(unsiege tanks, pull back while try to irridate the defiler and avoid scourage etc...). If you are pushed back to your exp(assuming it wasn't the case in the first place), it becomes hard to break. Having said that, I still enjoy playing against it so I dunno what patching can be done for it lol. It does remind me of the infestor to a degree during WoL days where once my opponent got them out in mass, I knew it was impossible to win lol >.> Defiler? You mean Winfiler? (Sorry I couldn't help it) Problem is that TvZ has generally been T favored regardless. Sci Vessels limit the defilers easily enough imo that the spell will kill an expensive unit. ya, at highest level it is but at low levels, I think TvZ is more Z favoured due to not having the APM to macro while controlling your bio army. I don't mind it though because it feels good when you win against late game Zerg lol. That and it's good practice since you worker harder(become faster) with each game  Heh Zerg's pretty hard at low levels too. Most low level players can't hotkey all their hatches and their macro suffers equally, especially since they then have to go base to base to macro. Unit control for Zerg can be quite challenging as well. I'd say toss is the only one that has pretty darn easy unit control. my only experience with Z was two games. ZvT where I beat my opponent's rush, he gg'd but didn't leave then I had no clue how to break him (I just droned then) and then lost lol. ZvP, managed to get a third but then sat back and eventually lost to mass carriers... ya, I get your point. I wonder how hotkeys are used for zerg but I figure you can use camera keys for hatchery locations and most control groups for your units with later ones being the tier 3 units and spellcasters etc... I think the reason I feel it's more favoured is because as terran, I have to stay on top of my production. If I don't make units for x time, my money pills up and I can't get back those units. Maybe if I have more structures, I can overcome this though(iloveoov used to do something similar). For zerg, if they manage to stockpile money due to poor macro, let's sink them all into ultras at once lol. I guess I see it as not much of a problem because of the way larva works for Zerg. I've done the same before so it's not about easier macro for sure but at least you can still get out those late game units and since we both have poor macro, the zerg is more likely to win. Protoss unit control is pretty easy lol. Let's hope no protoss players read this Heh, at a lower level you can just queue two-three marines at once per rax if you start cashfloating and the production is insanely better than if you were attempting to just build one marine at a time and keep remembering. At least that's how it was up until C level on iCCuP when I played. Keep in mind I haven't played since SC2 came out  , although I still watched Proleague for a while. I ended up just going mech in TvZ whenever I played. Imo it was arguably one of the easiest matchups to play from the Terran side. Just get vultures early on, then mass goliath/tank, super easy macro with expensive units to avoid cashfloating . ya but I want to learn how to play properly. If I get myself used to queue then it'll become harder to break the habit. I used to queue in SCII as well but eventually became better at it so it's every once in a while. As it stands, I only queue when I'm floating a ton of mineral so late-ish game. I think I need to work on my map vision. Reason being that once units are done, you get the yellow squares telling you so so I can then go back and make more. Shame on you for not playing BW since! Well, it's never too late to start playing again I prefer bio over mech due to how much more microable it seems although late game mech is something that I'm going to start gravitating towards soon enough On January 27 2014 09:46 Harem wrote:Just learn how to pressure the zerg and tvz gets a lot easier. You can't just be doing nothing and letting zerg do as he pleases. Once you grasp this concept and start applying it then your winrate will skyrocket. Just forcing the zerg to unburrow lurkers alone can cause them to stumble all over their keyboard. (at the level you guys are talking about) On March 15 2010 10:08 Ver wrote:
Bio TvZ is fine at any level. Remember that while you may feel you can't control your armies at all neither can the Zerg react properly, and ZvT is harder than TvZ at low levels because weaker players have enormous issues handling pressure. Aside from muta harass bio TvZ is all about the Terran constantly pressuring the Zerg. If you get it in his face he will play terribly. It doesn't matter if you lose half your army to 3 lurkers or if you have 2k because if you can land dships in his main nothing will go right for him.
I usually try to pressure early on but I've had some bad luck where I make it just as the sunkens are finished building. Other cases, I've just focused on my macro and less so on pressure so eventually, I lose the opportunity to prevent the zerg's third from going up and lose the game 10+ min later. I think I just need to be more active with my bio play and not afraid to take risks. It always surprised me how decent my opponent's muta micro is(D+ level). I think I need to incorporate more dropships in my play and get faster tanks+vessels lol. Heh, well just because you make it harder on yourself because you want to get better doesn't mean then it's harder at the lower levels. You're intentionally making it harder for yourself . if BW can be played at hyper speed, I would play it at that lol. Well, I see your point but I guess it's one of those habits that I want to stick to. Given, I'm not really complaining about defilers and such. I know I have to improve a ton more before I can get to a level I'm satisfied with and personally, I'm enjoying the ride :D
BW can already be played at hyper speed
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On January 27 2014 14:03 xboi209 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2014 11:46 BigFan wrote:On January 27 2014 10:45 FabledIntegral wrote:On January 27 2014 10:34 BigFan wrote:On January 27 2014 08:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think early/mid game zvt is at least equally hard for terran as for zerg. lategame if going bio then it's tougher for terran cuz zerg can at least semi-easily defend 4 gas while ultra herding or whatever, but lategame going mech is easier than countering it is for z also.
Also I think stuff like dark swarm and irradiate are part of what makes bw so great.. There's a whole lot seemingly totally imbalanced stuff,but somehow strategical+map evolution have made it work out superbly. like pvt, p's ability to expand and power up unhindered is totally imbalanced, but then 100 supply of terran ground does an alright job against 200 supply of protoss ground, and as long as maps are so big that protoss can actually mine more then it ends up being totally fair. ya, I love how even though some stuff is imba in BW, in the end, it all balances out somehow which is why I'm reluctant to recommend any balance changes in this thread(-2 I already mentioned lol). My mech is pretty terrible for some reason lol. I think I just don't macro well enough and every unit is needed when you mech imo. With bio, my micro can make up for my lackluster macro XD On January 27 2014 09:27 FabledIntegral wrote:On January 27 2014 08:22 BigFan wrote:On January 27 2014 08:01 FabledIntegral wrote:On January 27 2014 07:07 BigFan wrote:On January 27 2014 05:20 McRatyn wrote:On January 27 2014 05:17 BigFan wrote:
[quote]
based on what I've read and played with, I think the 'major' balance changes that should be made are that valkyrie sprite bug that everyone talks about and possible looking into the defiler and science vessel. Things like the reaver, storm and such I think are fine since there is a chance to dodge them. At my low level, once the zerg gets to defiler tech, unless I've limited their bases and was constantly pressuring to keep their army size small, I pretty much always lose lol. Dark swarm is pretty difficult to fight against just due to how many actions you need to do(unsiege tanks, pull back while try to irridate the defiler and avoid scourage etc...). If you are pushed back to your exp(assuming it wasn't the case in the first place), it becomes hard to break. Having said that, I still enjoy playing against it so I dunno what patching can be done for it lol. It does remind me of the infestor to a degree during WoL days where once my opponent got them out in mass, I knew it was impossible to win lol >.> Defiler? You mean Winfiler? (Sorry I couldn't help it) :O balance whining! reported! On January 27 2014 06:51 FabledIntegral wrote:On January 27 2014 05:20 McRatyn wrote:
[quote]
Defiler? You mean Winfiler? (Sorry I couldn't help it)
Problem is that TvZ has generally been T favored regardless. Sci Vessels limit the defilers easily enough imo that the spell will kill an expensive unit. ya, at highest level it is but at low levels, I think TvZ is more Z favoured due to not having the APM to macro while controlling your bio army. I don't mind it though because it feels good when you win against late game Zerg lol. That and it's good practice since you worker harder(become faster) with each game Heh Zerg's pretty hard at low levels too. Most low level players can't hotkey all their hatches and their macro suffers equally, especially since they then have to go base to base to macro. Unit control for Zerg can be quite challenging as well. I'd say toss is the only one that has pretty darn easy unit control. my only experience with Z was two games. ZvT where I beat my opponent's rush, he gg'd but didn't leave then I had no clue how to break him (I just droned then) and then lost lol. ZvP, managed to get a third but then sat back and eventually lost to mass carriers... ya, I get your point. I wonder how hotkeys are used for zerg but I figure you can use camera keys for hatchery locations and most control groups for your units with later ones being the tier 3 units and spellcasters etc... I think the reason I feel it's more favoured is because as terran, I have to stay on top of my production. If I don't make units for x time, my money pills up and I can't get back those units. Maybe if I have more structures, I can overcome this though(iloveoov used to do something similar). For zerg, if they manage to stockpile money due to poor macro, let's sink them all into ultras at once lol. I guess I see it as not much of a problem because of the way larva works for Zerg. I've done the same before so it's not about easier macro for sure but at least you can still get out those late game units and since we both have poor macro, the zerg is more likely to win. Protoss unit control is pretty easy lol. Let's hope no protoss players read this Heh, at a lower level you can just queue two-three marines at once per rax if you start cashfloating and the production is insanely better than if you were attempting to just build one marine at a time and keep remembering. At least that's how it was up until C level on iCCuP when I played. Keep in mind I haven't played since SC2 came out , although I still watched Proleague for a while. I ended up just going mech in TvZ whenever I played. Imo it was arguably one of the easiest matchups to play from the Terran side. Just get vultures early on, then mass goliath/tank, super easy macro with expensive units to avoid cashfloating . ya but I want to learn how to play properly. If I get myself used to queue then it'll become harder to break the habit. I used to queue in SCII as well but eventually became better at it so it's every once in a while. As it stands, I only queue when I'm floating a ton of mineral so late-ish game. I think I need to work on my map vision. Reason being that once units are done, you get the yellow squares telling you so so I can then go back and make more. Shame on you for not playing BW since! Well, it's never too late to start playing again I prefer bio over mech due to how much more microable it seems although late game mech is something that I'm going to start gravitating towards soon enough On January 27 2014 09:46 Harem wrote:Just learn how to pressure the zerg and tvz gets a lot easier. You can't just be doing nothing and letting zerg do as he pleases. Once you grasp this concept and start applying it then your winrate will skyrocket. Just forcing the zerg to unburrow lurkers alone can cause them to stumble all over their keyboard. (at the level you guys are talking about) On March 15 2010 10:08 Ver wrote:
Bio TvZ is fine at any level. Remember that while you may feel you can't control your armies at all neither can the Zerg react properly, and ZvT is harder than TvZ at low levels because weaker players have enormous issues handling pressure. Aside from muta harass bio TvZ is all about the Terran constantly pressuring the Zerg. If you get it in his face he will play terribly. It doesn't matter if you lose half your army to 3 lurkers or if you have 2k because if you can land dships in his main nothing will go right for him.
I usually try to pressure early on but I've had some bad luck where I make it just as the sunkens are finished building. Other cases, I've just focused on my macro and less so on pressure so eventually, I lose the opportunity to prevent the zerg's third from going up and lose the game 10+ min later. I think I just need to be more active with my bio play and not afraid to take risks. It always surprised me how decent my opponent's muta micro is(D+ level). I think I need to incorporate more dropships in my play and get faster tanks+vessels lol. Heh, well just because you make it harder on yourself because you want to get better doesn't mean then it's harder at the lower levels. You're intentionally making it harder for yourself . if BW can be played at hyper speed, I would play it at that lol. Well, I see your point but I guess it's one of those habits that I want to stick to. Given, I'm not really complaining about defilers and such. I know I have to improve a ton more before I can get to a level I'm satisfied with and personally, I'm enjoying the ride :D BW can already be played at hyper speed
say what? :O Did I miss the joke? lol.
|
On January 27 2014 08:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think early/mid game zvt is at least equally hard for terran as for zerg. lategame if going bio then it's tougher for terran cuz zerg can at least semi-easily defend 4 gas while ultra herding or whatever, but lategame going mech is easier than countering it is for z also.
Also I think stuff like dark swarm and irradiate are part of what makes bw so great.. There's a whole lot seemingly totally imbalanced stuff,but somehow strategical+map evolution have made it work out superbly. like pvt, p's ability to expand and power up unhindered is totally imbalanced, but then 100 supply of terran ground does an alright job against 200 supply of protoss ground, and as long as maps are so big that protoss can actually mine more then it ends up being totally fair.
If there were a lot of seemingly imbalanced (or more accurately - powerful) aspects, that ended up cancelling each other out, then a given matchup in question would simply not be imbalanced, and this would be reflected in roughly equal winrates for the matchup. The fact is, looking into winrate statistics (and a whole lot else) for certain matchups, there is a significant discrepancy - with the consequent conclusion that some matchups are in fact, not very fair at all (further more, direct analysis of games, will yield specific reasons, as to why the winrate statistics are consistently skewed as they are - but this would necessitate a whole separate discussion). You conspicuously mentioned PvT, which is the most balanced non-mirror, but further examination would yield less positive results.
The basic concept regarding "balance" is the following: theoretically all other things being equal, players of a similar skill level, should have a similar chance of winning, regardless of matchup. This is clearly not the case with BW (various comprehensive evidences for this- take your pick).
Map and strategic evolution has ameliorated certain matchup imbalances, at some points in time, to some extent, but it has not been nearly enough. Certain matchups have historically been consistently imbalanced - as per winrate statistics (among other things), and currently in the Pro-Scene for example, the situation for some matchups is essentially as bad as it's ever been - even using some of the most balanced maps in history.
In any case, if the discussion is regarding how to improve BW, the way to go about it, is not to accept that there are significant imbalances (evidenced by comprehensive statistics, among other things) and try and attempt to fix this through indirect methods, which have typically been insufficient, and which would not address the root issue, which would remain problematic in future/other situations - Rather, the goal should be to balance the matchups such that relative skill difference closely mirrors winrate differential, among all matchups, in a wide range of situations (e.g. maps,etc). From this point forward, you can tweak maps, you can modify strategy, and this way, the game is fundamentally strong - from the most basic gameplay elements, all the way upwards. The end result is better in all respects, for all parties involved. Fundamentally strong(balanced), more fun, more entertaining.
Don't get me wrong, I have said many times, that BW is probably the best game, but to put the current version on a pedestal and say that it is objectively balanced or perfect, or that there are no possible improvements (in addition to what could be achieved through maps/strategy, etc - both could/should be done), is not correct or productive. Think about the context, the developers created BW in the late 1990s. The last balance patch was in 2001. It is now 2014.The developers had no idea how to play the game, what it would become, how units would be used, etc. The Strategy guide is absurd. In the early 2000s, understanding of BW was still rudimentary in comparison.
But anyways, so it's the case that BW developers, in 2001, with no knowledge of what BW would become, somehow created the perfect last patch, and all the matchups became perfectly balanced for all time, and all the units are perfect, and there are no possible future patches that could in any way improve the gameplay/balance of BW - even taking into account changes in maps/strategy?
Well, considering the vast complexity of BW, it is actually somewhat of a miracle that the game even became/remained playable at all. The developers did an exceptional job, all things considered, but no, the game is not perfectly patched/balanced. There are perhaps likely, a number of relatively minor patching changes that could be implemented to improve certain matchups, and perhaps some others that would require a bit more thought. The end result however, of a more balanced, fundamentally strong game, would be beneficial for everyone in the BW community.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
Drone never said anywhere in his post that BW is perfect, rather he said that even with some of the imbalances in some units, the development of the metagame and maps etc... have helped in reducing their effect to the point where it's possible for the better player to win.
|
i would like to see a command like /rl -ranklimit- with latency
|
Norway28642 Posts
anything within 55-45 for any given matchup is imo very acceptable and I don't think a large sample size of highest level games have ever amounted to significantly worse than that? I'm actually gonna add up the 20 first maps from TLPD to see whether this holds up, wait for it at the end of the post. Traditionally this has been a t>z>p>=t thingy.
At a lower level than the highest level, people just need to improve, and at the highest level it has always been pretty much fine although some map pools have occasionally made one race too weak or too tough, if you look at "most played map for certain era" then that map has pretty much always been within the 45-55? I think dark swarm+lurker being too powerful is actually countered really well by irradiate being too powerful, I think terran mech being too powerful in a fortified position is actually countered really well by zerg and protoss both being able to vastly outexpand and outproduce a defensively minded terran, etc, to the point where I don't can't actually come up with anything broken outside from certain scenarios that might play out in certain games on certain maps - but nothing broken that a player can force "every game"-ish.
I guess if you and your buddy started at the same time and he chose protoss and you chose terran and he's destroying you now even though you've both played 150 games each then it might feel annoying and like the game is actually imbalanced, but I really think any real bw imbalance harmful to the playing experience is only really a thing when considering that new terran players might feel that their improvement is going too slowly. And for a 15 year old game that's not such a big deal.
anyway, stats!
+ Show Spoiler +
maps used are: circuit breaker, electric circuit, fighting spirit, blue storm, sniper ridge, neo jade,bloody ridge, dante's peak, outlier, aztec, chain reaction, colosseum 2, destination, god's garden, heartbreak ridge, jade,longinus, luna, match point, medusa. I chose these ones because I was too lazy to think of any other semi-random way to pick them. from all of these, the only matchups with more than 50 games played and more than 60-40 either way are:
tvz and pvt aztec (but more than anything this is just a terran graveyard - with them only winning 39% vs z and 35% vs p.)
pvt god's garden (once again though, one of the most graving imbalances is one that goes the other way from the norm - protoss only wins 38.5%
zvp and pvt luna - here zerg wins 60% of zvp and p wins 60% of pvt
now for combined stats:
tvz: 1070 - 1023 51.1% - 48.9%
zvp: 1169 - 957 54.98% - 45.02%
tvp: 1096 - 930 : 54.1% - 45.9%
I basically think that this is perfectly fine and that it showcases that with proper map pools, then racial imbalances are no significant factor. wanting to patch any part of the bw gameplay should be argued from a different point of view, imo.
|
On January 27 2014 15:42 miercat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2014 08:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think early/mid game zvt is at least equally hard for terran as for zerg. lategame if going bio then it's tougher for terran cuz zerg can at least semi-easily defend 4 gas while ultra herding or whatever, but lategame going mech is easier than countering it is for z also.
Also I think stuff like dark swarm and irradiate are part of what makes bw so great.. There's a whole lot seemingly totally imbalanced stuff,but somehow strategical+map evolution have made it work out superbly. like pvt, p's ability to expand and power up unhindered is totally imbalanced, but then 100 supply of terran ground does an alright job against 200 supply of protoss ground, and as long as maps are so big that protoss can actually mine more then it ends up being totally fair. If there were a lot of seemingly imbalanced (or more accurately - powerful) aspects, that ended up cancelling each other out, then a given matchup in question would simply not be imbalanced, and this would be reflected in roughly equal winrates for the matchup. The fact is, looking into winrate statistics (and a whole lot else) for certain matchups, there is a significant discrepancy - with the consequent conclusion that some matchups are in fact, not very fair at all (further more, direct analysis of games, will yield specific reasons, as to why the winrate statistics are consistently skewed as they are - but this would necessitate a whole separate discussion). You conspicuously mentioned PvT, which is the most balanced non-mirror, but further examination would yield less positive results. The basic concept regarding "balance" is the following: theoretically all other things being equal, players of a similar skill level, should have a similar chance of winning, regardless of matchup. This is clearly not the case with BW (various comprehensive evidences for this- take your pick). Map and strategic evolution has ameliorated certain matchup imbalances, at some points in time, to some extent, but it has not been nearly enough. Certain matchups have historically been consistently imbalanced - as per winrate statistics (among other things), and currently in the Pro-Scene for example, the situation for some matchups is essentially as bad as it's ever been - even using some of the most balanced maps in history. In any case, if the discussion is regarding how to improve BW, the way to go about it, is not to accept that there are significant imbalances (evidenced by comprehensive statistics, among other things) and try and attempt to fix this through indirect methods, which have typically been insufficient, and which would not address the root issue, which would remain problematic in future/other situations - Rather, the goal should be to balance the matchups such that relative skill difference closely mirrors winrate differential, among all matchups, in a wide range of situations (e.g. maps,etc). From this point forward, you can tweak maps, you can modify strategy, and this way, the game is fundamentally strong - from the most basic gameplay elements, all the way upwards. The end result is better in all respects, for all parties involved. Fundamentally strong(balanced), more fun, more entertaining. Don't get me wrong, I have said many times, that BW is probably the best game, but to put the current version on a pedestal and say that it is objectively balanced or perfect, or that there are no possible improvements (in addition to what could be achieved through maps/strategy, etc - both could/should be done), is not correct or productive. Think about the context, the developers created BW in the late 1990s. The last balance patch was in 2001. It is now 2014.The developers had no idea how to play the game, what it would become, how units would be used, etc. The Strategy guide is absurd. In the early 2000s, understanding of BW was still rudimentary in comparison. But anyways, so it's the case that BW developers, in 2001, with no knowledge of what BW would become, somehow created the perfect last patch, and all the matchups became perfectly balanced for all time, and all the units are perfect, and there are no possible future patches that could in any way improve the gameplay/balance of BW - even taking into account changes in maps/strategy? Well, considering the vast complexity of BW, it is actually somewhat of a miracle that the game even became/remained playable at all. The developers did an exceptional job, all things considered, but no, the game is not perfectly patched/balanced. There are perhaps likely, a number of relatively minor patching changes that could be implemented to improve certain matchups, and perhaps some others that would require a bit more thought. The end result however, of a more balanced, fundamentally strong game, would be beneficial for everyone in the BW community.
Ramble, ramble ramble.
I'm not even going to adress your arguments, all I need to say is:
For every non-mirror matchup there have been maps which swung statistical balance into the favor of either race of the matchup and there have been maps where both races remained relatively even.
Liquid'Drone's argument that everything can be balanced through maps is correct.
Yours isn't necessarily wrong, but it's completely irrelevant, all those statistics indicate is that KESPA made more maps that favor one race over the other.
I'd like to finish saying that by your logic the game is truly balanced only if all the races achieve 50% wr on a completely flat map with 8 minerals, a gas and zero terrain to speak of.
What you have there is a non argument. Also I only read the first two paragraphs because you were obviously walking into a logical loop and thats impossible to argue with.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 22 2014 09:07 thezanursic wrote:
Slightly increase starting energy of Queens/Ghosts/DA or slightly decrease their spell cost just so you'd see these units a little bit more without fucking over the balance.
Slightly increase air to ground attack for scouts so that you can make 1,2 and force turrets in the extremely rare situation of 12 nex into 2 base carrier/fast arb. Imagine ForGG vs Kal on Colosseum, like that except a little better and scouts would get a legit use in-game, still shitty, but usable.
Fix certain map tiles that are broken and can't actually be used when making a competative map.
More melee map features, I'd go crazy here, give mapmakers a lot of new optione, if they find a legit use good for them, if they don't, no harm done.
Everything from collapsable bridges to evenground miss chance ground(which can already be done, but in a limiting manner)
Fix map resolution, so that this would actually allow 126+/126+ maps
Drone how do you feel about these changes?
|
Norway28642 Posts
I think the timing for zealot into DA into third exp vs standard zerg who counters no stargate with muta is already so close that tinkering with DA starting energy (assuming you wanna make it like, 75 and not a tiny change like 55) is really dangerous and likely to break more than it fixes. and queens are already good, and they don't need any improvement.
making ghosts start with 75 or even having lockdown at 75 prolly wouldnt break anything though, and in the best case could cause for some fun recall-defense with more frequent hallucinated arbs as a counter.
I dunno about scouts, I'm basically fine with them being kinda useless, not sure if they could fill an actual necessary gap without breaking anything. See, the thing is, if you add 1 building scout instead of corsair as a viable option for zvp, or 1 stargate scout rushing pvt, then you're not just creating a new option, you're forcing the opponent to adjust his staple build order. I'll take a quick look at tvp to illustrate my example. Now, usually if the terran scouts the protoss, then he will be able to tell that nothing outrageous is going on. Like, even if the scv dies without seeing a citadel or robo, simply noticing the absence of them makes it likely that there's some 1 gate nexus thing going on, and it further tells you how long you have until reavers or dts can show up assuming he starts that tech immediately after your scv is dead. After that scv dies, you will often not be able to really scout anything crucial for a couple minutes. However, a good terran player can adjust to the information he did get and make as many scvs as he can afford to while timing his mines/tank/turret defense in a way that successfully handles either a mass goon attack (with gateways started after leaving) or some bulldog or reavers or dts. And lets be honest - even good terrans do lose against either of these 1 gateway nexus followups because they make assumptions and try to cut corners - but it will be even harder to make a good staple counter build order if 1 stargate scout is gonna be another possible followup.
As an addendum, their air to ground attack was actually nerfed in one of the early patches, maybe 1.02?, because mass scouts was super strong to a lot of players back then, especially terrans had a really hard time dealing with them - they would destroy turrets and goliaths.
no real opinion on map stuff
|
They nerfed the Wraith's anti ground attack as well.
|
Yup, all they did was increase the cooldown of their respective ATG attacks from 22.5 to 30 (I have no idea what that translates to in real-time measurements).
|
TLADT24920 Posts
their reasoning for the change for antiground makes sense as well. Too bad though seeing as scouts are my favourite unit :/
|
They also made Starport and Control Tower addon cheaper.
Speaking of air units I would like to see the Valkyrie be able to move immediately after it has fired. As it stands I believe it's the only fighting unit in the game that's completely un-microable, unless you count the marginally useful reverse patrol trick.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On January 28 2014 08:48 fencer wrote:
They also made Starport and Control Tower addon cheaper.
Speaking of air units I would like to see the Valkyrie be able to move immediately after it has fired. As it stands I believe it's the only fighting unit in the game that's completely un-microable, unless you count the marginally useful reverse patrol trick.
That would make it a lot more difficult to battle valkyries considering they are already powerful in number and have a decent enough speed. At least, that's what I think
|
On January 28 2014 08:48 fencer wrote:
They also made Starport and Control Tower addon cheaper.
Speaking of air units I would like to see the Valkyrie be able to move immediately after it has fired. As it stands I believe it's the only fighting unit in the game that's completely un-microable, unless you count the marginally useful reverse patrol trick.
Marginally useful? Dude, that shit is insane
Just because it's extremely hard to learn doesn't mean it's not very useful once you do know it
|
On January 28 2014 06:42 Liquid`Drone wrote:
As an addendum, [Scouts] air to ground attack was actually nerfed in one of the early patches, maybe 1.02?, because mass scouts was super strong to a lot of players back then, especially terrans had a really hard time dealing with them - they would destroy turrets and goliaths. Tadah wrote:
Yup, all they did was increase the cooldown of [Scouts and Wraiths] ATG attacks from 22.5 to 30 (I have no idea what that translates to in real-time measurements).
Yah, that change happened in the 1.04 patch. And IIRC, the reason Bliz gave for it on their forums was the sheer mobility of massed Scouts and Wraiths. They could hit you somewhere all at once as a pack, and dart from base to base and harass to harass.. but meanwhile, the defending player's anti-air was split among his bases/armies.
Even so, a lot of ppl complained about the change at the time, as it still didn't seem to make much sense.
I mean, pre-nerfing, Scouts' and Wraths' ATG attack was maybe almost on par with that of Mutas (Muta ATG did considerably more dmg per shot, if you remember the bounces, but Muta cooldown was worse). And Mutas are a cheaper unit (much cheaper than Scouts actually), and their small size makes them fairly hard to kill too, as we all know.
Sure, Wraiths have cloaking, and Scouts are durable as heck, but all that really did was balance out how cheap mutas are for the ATG damage they do. It got you 'back to even', so to speak.
So, with the Scout and Wraith ATG nerf, you ended up with, "Oh, so it's okay for Zerg to be able to mass very mobile and effective ground-attacking air units in midgame, but it somehow 'breaks the game' if Protoss and Terran have that capability too? Um... whaa?"
Perhaps for 'vanilla' Starcraft (non-BW SC1), it could almost make sense, but BW came out at the same time as the 1.04 patch, and brought with it Charon Boosters, Valks, Corsairs, etc, i.e. things that could deal with massed Scouts and Wraiths well.
Don't know if it makes sense to balance for vanilla SC anymore, even back in the '90s it was largely abandoned once BW came out, 'cept for a few diehards.
Weak Scout and Wraith ATG also screws others things up, if you think about it. For instance, Valks have a pretty small role ('cept vs Z sometimes) and don't get used much, but if you saw more frequent Scout and Wraith ATG assaults (do you ever even see a mass Scout ATG assault anymore?), Valks would suddenly become more broadly useful (and used). At least in medium numbers (thank you, stupid sprite bug).
My .02 anyway.
|
United States11390 Posts
Valks do get used in TvT a lot nowadays due to the mass wraith emphasis.
They also synergize really well with mech switches tvz and make them a lot harder to deal with.
|
On January 28 2014 05:38 thezanursic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2014 15:42 miercat wrote:On January 27 2014 08:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think early/mid game zvt is at least equally hard for terran as for zerg. lategame if going bio then it's tougher for terran cuz zerg can at least semi-easily defend 4 gas while ultra herding or whatever, but lategame going mech is easier than countering it is for z also.
Also I think stuff like dark swarm and irradiate are part of what makes bw so great.. There's a whole lot seemingly totally imbalanced stuff,but somehow strategical+map evolution have made it work out superbly. like pvt, p's ability to expand and power up unhindered is totally imbalanced, but then 100 supply of terran ground does an alright job against 200 supply of protoss ground, and as long as maps are so big that protoss can actually mine more then it ends up being totally fair. If there were a lot of seemingly imbalanced (or more accurately - powerful) aspects, that ended up cancelling each other out, then a given matchup in question would simply not be imbalanced, and this would be reflected in roughly equal winrates for the matchup. The fact is, looking into winrate statistics (and a whole lot else) for certain matchups, there is a significant discrepancy - with the consequent conclusion that some matchups are in fact, not very fair at all (further more, direct analysis of games, will yield specific reasons, as to why the winrate statistics are consistently skewed as they are - but this would necessitate a whole separate discussion). You conspicuously mentioned PvT, which is the most balanced non-mirror, but further examination would yield less positive results. The basic concept regarding "balance" is the following: theoretically all other things being equal, players of a similar skill level, should have a similar chance of winning, regardless of matchup. This is clearly not the case with BW (various comprehensive evidences for this- take your pick). Map and strategic evolution has ameliorated certain matchup imbalances, at some points in time, to some extent, but it has not been nearly enough. Certain matchups have historically been consistently imbalanced - as per winrate statistics (among other things), and currently in the Pro-Scene for example, the situation for some matchups is essentially as bad as it's ever been - even using some of the most balanced maps in history. In any case, if the discussion is regarding how to improve BW, the way to go about it, is not to accept that there are significant imbalances (evidenced by comprehensive statistics, among other things) and try and attempt to fix this through indirect methods, which have typically been insufficient, and which would not address the root issue, which would remain problematic in future/other situations - Rather, the goal should be to balance the matchups such that relative skill difference closely mirrors winrate differential, among all matchups, in a wide range of situations (e.g. maps,etc). From this point forward, you can tweak maps, you can modify strategy, and this way, the game is fundamentally strong - from the most basic gameplay elements, all the way upwards. The end result is better in all respects, for all parties involved. Fundamentally strong(balanced), more fun, more entertaining. Don't get me wrong, I have said many times, that BW is probably the best game, but to put the current version on a pedestal and say that it is objectively balanced or perfect, or that there are no possible improvements (in addition to what could be achieved through maps/strategy, etc - both could/should be done), is not correct or productive. Think about the context, the developers created BW in the late 1990s. The last balance patch was in 2001. It is now 2014.The developers had no idea how to play the game, what it would become, how units would be used, etc. The Strategy guide is absurd. In the early 2000s, understanding of BW was still rudimentary in comparison. But anyways, so it's the case that BW developers, in 2001, with no knowledge of what BW would become, somehow created the perfect last patch, and all the matchups became perfectly balanced for all time, and all the units are perfect, and there are no possible future patches that could in any way improve the gameplay/balance of BW - even taking into account changes in maps/strategy? Well, considering the vast complexity of BW, it is actually somewhat of a miracle that the game even became/remained playable at all. The developers did an exceptional job, all things considered, but no, the game is not perfectly patched/balanced. There are perhaps likely, a number of relatively minor patching changes that could be implemented to improve certain matchups, and perhaps some others that would require a bit more thought. The end result however, of a more balanced, fundamentally strong game, would be beneficial for everyone in the BW community. Ramble, ramble ramble. I'm not even going to adress your arguments, all I need to say is: For every non-mirror matchup there have been maps which swung statistical balance into the favor of either race of the matchup and there have been maps where both races remained relatively even. Liquid'Drone's argument that everything can be balanced through maps is correct. Yours isn't necessarily wrong, but it's completely irrelevant, all those statistics indicate is that KESPA made more maps that favor one race over the other. I'd like to finish saying that by your logic the game is truly balanced only if all the races achieve 50% wr on a completely flat map with 8 minerals, a gas and zero terrain to speak of. What you have there is a non argument. Also I only read the first two paragraphs because you were obviously walking into a logical loop and thats impossible to argue with.
That you didn't read the whole post is quite obvious. Your response was incoherent, without a single point of value.
I addressed the fact that maps, have ameliorated imbalances to some extent, and at some points in time, and explained why this process has been insufficient and suboptimal - explained in original post.
I addressed the issue of balancing matchups through maps, as opposed to other means - and it turns out, that whether or not you can balance through maps is not the main issue. Also mentioned why alternative methods of balancing would be superior in comparison, and why ultimately using a variety of methods to balance (including maps, patches) would be more optimal- explained in the original post.
Your understanding and assessment of the BW/matchups/ and the statistics in question, is simply incomplete and inaccurate - (While maps play a large role in balancing, racial aspects often play a similar or larger role. - if historical imbalances exist (in terms of statistics, and gameplay analysis) regardless of a constantly changing map pool - then it is obvious that maps are not the primary factor involved - common sense - similarly it is obvious that just changing maps is not the optimal solution) (Both arguments are quite relevant with regards to balancing, it's just that my argument is more comprehensive and has stronger points). - explained in original post.
You have no understanding of "my" logic. The example you gave is false (the balance explanation I provided, was actually lifted from a fairly comprehensive TL article I read years ago, although I cannot remember the title. It was so well worded and clear, and meaningful, that I remembered and decided to use it - obviously though, it went way over your head). - as per original post.
The concept you might be starting to realize, is read a post before you decide to comment on it. Idiot.
What you are referring to as a "logical loop", is actually just an example of basic coherent thought. Something which you seem to have very little understanding of. Of course, you didn't read the post, so you wouldn't know anyways.
Don't waste my time by making stupid irrelevant responses. Read the post and try to make an informed response or don't bother at all. Although based on your previous response, your reading comprehension is apparently not at the level where it would even necessarily make a difference.
|
On January 28 2014 12:32 Harem wrote:
Valks do get used in TvT a lot nowadays due to the mass wraith emphasis.
Great... so let's see 'em in TvP too. More Scouts, please.
|
On January 28 2014 12:23 [[Starlight]] wrote:
I mean, pre-nerfing, Scouts' and Wraths' ATG attack was maybe almost on par with that of Mutas (Muta ATG did considerably more dmg per shot, if you remember the bounces, but Muta cooldown was worse).
I think Blizzard's reason for nerfing their air to ground damage was a very valid one, they only forgot to give the scout a new role once it could no longer fill the old one. With scouts' ridiculous air to air damage and HP, not even valkyries or corsairs necessarily do that well against them, so they needed to be killable from the ground so not every game would devolve into massed basic air units. Wraiths have a clear role in the game despite lowered ground damage so I don't understand your criticism there. I can only imagine how with the old damage TvT would be basically ZvZ by now with rushed massed wraiths every game. Just look at how powerful the wraith already is in TvT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
