As everyone knows, Brood War hasn't had a balance patch in well over a decade. Despite this, it remains surprisingly balanced at the top level with every race having a good chunk of representation. Still, it's also pretty clear that each race has one slightly favourable matchup and one slightly unfavourable one. Zerg vs. Protoss favours Zerg by about 54.5%, Terran vs. Zerg favours Terran by about 54.5% and Protoss vs. Terran favours Protoss by about 52.5%. Now, these numbers aren't really all that far from 50% which is why Brood War is lauded for its balance but it still makes a difference. This is especially true in individual tournaments where Protoss seem to struggle.
So hypothetically, if you had control over balance patches, what changes would you make to try and make the game as balanced as possible? Ideally, a balance patch for one matchup should affect a different matchup as little as possible.
In Terran vs. Zerg, it seems obvious that if you nerf bio somehow, it wouldn't affect the other matchups. But at the same time, if you just nerf bio, it could just mean an increase in mech play instead, since mech is relatively viable, even in TvZ. That said, it would be interesting to find out the winrate of Mech TvZ vs. Bio TvZ. Either way, I don't think a bio nerf would do much other than making more players use mech. My best idea was a science vessal nerf. My first variant of this idea was to make irradiate cost 100 but I figured that would be way too much of a nerf. I think the best way to balance it would be to increase the time it takes for it to deal all of its damage. According to liquipedia, Irradiate deals 250 damage over 37 in-game seconds. If that was nerfed to, say, 50 seconds, I think it would be significant enough to make a difference, but still leave it as an essential tool to have.
In Zerg vs. Protoss, the obvious unit to nerf is the hydralisk. It's the unit that Protoss has the most trouble with in the mid-game and it's not really used in the other 2 Zerg Matchups. My first idea here was a simple damage nerf so that instead of 10 base damage, Hydralisks would do 9. Essentially a -1 range attack upgrade. Another idea for the hydralisks would be a health nerf from 80 to 75. This lets dragoons and zealots kill it in one less hit each. An alternative would be a buff to a Protoss unit. Here, the obvious unit to help out is the corsair. A +1 damage buff comes to mind but it's pretty clear that it would be way too much. A health buff from 100 health 80 shields to 120 health 80 shields would mean it would still die to a pair of scourge, but it would be slightly more sturdy against mutalisks and hydralisks. A Psi Storm buff also came to mind but I think that this too would be a bit much. The fact that 1 storm doesn't kill a lurker is key point so any damage buff would be overkill.
Protoss vs. Terran is more even than the other two matchups but I still feel some adjustments could be made. The obvious one to mirror my first TvZ idea would be to buff EMP to cost 75 energy instead of 100. I don't think this does much against anything but arbiters and really late game Protoss armies so I think it's reasonable. You can't really buff Tanks, Vultures or Goliaths without having to worry about the TvZ matchup so that's probably a no-go. I know that nobody wants to nerf carriers. I would say get rid of the Arbiter attack but everyone knows it doesn't do shit anyway. Probably the best change to the arbiter would be to increase stasis field cost to 125 but even that might be a bit too much.
These are just my thoughts. I'm sure a lot of these are actually stupid and I'm just being an idiot but what ideas do you guys have for hypothetical balance changes?
Brood War is not played in a vacuum. Are you forgetting maps in your equation?
And balance =/= design (which people don't give Brood War enough credit)
On January 21 2015 04:53 neobowman wrote: Still, it's also pretty clear that each race has one slightly favourable matchup and one slightly unfavourable one. Zerg vs. Protoss favours Zerg by about 54.5%, Terran vs. Zerg favours Terran by about 54.5% and Protoss vs. Terran favours Protoss by about 52.5%.
On. Which. Map?
And, no it's not "pretty clear" since the metagame is still evolving to this day.
Now time for Artosis/Thorin to explain everything to you:
This thread seems like a troll bait thread. First and foremost, races were balanced and still are balanced by maps. 2ndly, racial balance doesn't even matter because if you take a player like Flash or Jaedong and planted him in an era where the maps disfavored him, they would still dominate because of their own personal skills rather than the abstract concept of balance.
On January 21 2015 04:53 neobowman wrote: As everyone knows, Brood War hasn't had a balance patch in well over a decade. Despite this, it remains surprisingly balanced at the top level with every race having a good chunk of representation. Still, it's also pretty clear that each race has one slightly favourable matchup and one slightly unfavourable one. Zerg vs. Protoss favours Zerg by about 54.5%, Terran vs. Zerg favours Terran by about 54.5% and Protoss vs. Terran favours Protoss by about 52.5%. Now, these numbers aren't really all that far from 50% which is why Brood War is lauded for its balance but it still makes a difference. This is especially true in individual tournaments where Protoss seem to struggle.
So hypothetically, if you had control over balance patches, what changes would you make to try and make the game as balanced as possible? Ideally, a balance patch for one matchup should affect a different matchup as little as possible.
In Terran vs. Zerg, it seems obvious that if you nerf bio somehow, it wouldn't affect the other matchups. But at the same time, if you just nerf bio, it could just mean an increase in mech play instead, since mech is relatively viable, even in TvZ. That said, it would be interesting to find out the winrate of Mech TvZ vs. Bio TvZ. Either way, I don't think a bio nerf would do much other than making more players use mech. My best idea was a science vessal nerf. My first variant of this idea was to make irradiate cost 100 but I figured that would be way too much of a nerf. I think the best way to balance it would be to increase the time it takes for it to deal all of its damage. According to liquipedia, Irradiate deals 250 damage over 37 in-game seconds. If that was nerfed to, say, 50 seconds, I think it would be significant enough to make a difference, but still leave it as an essential tool to have.
In Zerg vs. Protoss, the obvious unit to nerf is the hydralisk. It's the unit that Protoss has the most trouble with in the mid-game and it's not really used in the other 2 Zerg Matchups. My first idea here was a simple damage nerf so that instead of 10 base damage, Hydralisks would do 9. Essentially a -1 range attack upgrade. Another idea for the hydralisks would be a health nerf from 80 to 75. This lets dragoons and zealots kill it in one less hit each. An alternative would be a buff to a Protoss unit. Here, the obvious unit to help out is the corsair. A +1 damage buff comes to mind but it's pretty clear that it would be way too much. A health buff from 100 health 80 shields to 120 health 80 shields would mean it would still die to a pair of scourge, but it would be slightly more sturdy against mutalisks and hydralisks. A Psi Storm buff also came to mind but I think that this too would be a bit much. The fact that 1 storm doesn't kill a lurker is key point so any damage buff would be overkill.
Protoss vs. Terran is more even than the other two matchups but I still feel some adjustments could be made. The obvious one to mirror my first TvZ idea would be to buff EMP to cost 75 energy instead of 100. I don't think this does much against anything but arbiters and really late game Protoss armies so I think it's reasonable. You can't really buff Tanks, Vultures or Goliaths without having to worry about the TvZ matchup so that's probably a no-go. I know that nobody wants to nerf carriers. I would say get rid of the Arbiter attack but everyone knows it doesn't do shit anyway. Probably the best change to the arbiter would be to increase stasis field cost to 125 but even that might be a bit too much.
These are just my thoughts. I'm sure a lot of these are actually stupid and I'm just being an idiot but what ideas do you guys have for hypothetical balance changes?
the problem for zergs in TvZ is not bio, it's the late mech transition on maps like fighting spirit. nerfing bio/vessels would break the match up.
in PvZ, if you nerf hydra's, zerg will be too weak composition wise. IMO, protoss biggest problem(any expert on pvz please correct me) is hydra busts. it's a weird idea but maybe if corsairs spawned with energy and dweb available it could create some cool meta-game, but obviously zerg should be compensated somehow if that would be included.
TvP is relativly balanced on the highest level and shouldn't be touched imo, but if renewing the meta game is considered, then I think ghosts and DA's should be buffed.
I understand Brood War is not played in a vacuum. Heck, I made BW maps for years. Yet, if you factor in all the maps, and take a look at a map that everyone considers balanced (Fighting Spirit), then it's pretty obvious that there is this slight imbalance for each race.
Now, yes, individual players are good in and of themselves. There's no denying that, but take a look at their winrates. Try denying that Flash's TvZ is better than Jaedong ZvT. They're both amazing at the matchups, but Flash (and if you look in the past, other Bonjwas), have had stunningly good TvZ in comparison to their Zerg counterparts' ZvT. Great players exist for all races, but the overall trend is still there.
Now, I was not aware of the changed PvT balance in SOSPA. I would be interested to see the statistics since I can't find them myself.
On January 21 2015 05:30 upro)wraith wrote: the problem for zergs in TvZ is not bio, it's the late mech transition on maps like fighting spirit. nerfing bio/vessels would break the match up.
in PvZ, if you nerf hydra's, zerg will be too weak composition wise. IMO, protoss biggest problem(any expert on pvz please correct me) is hydra busts. it's a weird idea but maybe if corsairs spawned with energy and dweb available it could create some cool meta-game, but obviously zerg should be compensated somehow if that would be included.
TvP is relativly balanced on the highest level and shouldn't be touched imo, but if renewing the meta game is considered, then I think ghosts and DA's should be buffed.
I'm not saying nerf hydras into oblivion. I'm saying to nerf them so they're not quite as crazy for Protosses to deal with while keeping them a substantial threat. Now, I'm not sure if my proposed changes accomplish that but that's what I want to be discussing.
Discussions, theories, and thoughts regarding any potential changes (especially something like BALANCE CHANGE) on a game which its professional league/field haven't been changed for more a decade are expected with heavy criticism. I hope you realize that OP before making that thread.
Another thing to note is that for OP or anyone else for that matter to bring up meaningful discussions and arguments also require intensive knowledge and research of the current gameplay and meta in recent events down to years past for reference. But mostly recent trends/factors/meta/etc like things happening currently in Korean SC BW scene.
I fail to see that here currently and to argue against OP, all the suggestions have counters and current balance aren't considered a game-breaker when played among progamers. Sure we can talk about balance patch among non-pros but at the end of the day, everyone who plays this game are pretty much mirroring one another in terms of strategy/tactics/build orders like how non-pros would often try builds by pros or pros trying other pros build or how one would experiment with their own builds and most likely it's not your original build since a variation of such was done at some point somewhere.
Just as you would often see Terran > Zerg > Protoss > Terran logic at times, Terran < Zerg < Protoss < Terran easily happens as well over the years not by the game balance itself but by changing perspective/strats/builds/tactics that gamers themselves invented.
Putting aside balance patch, we already have meta in SC BW constantly evolving by maps, gamers and outside factors (player condition, mind games, willpower, etc) which makes this game fine as it is.
So I think this is completely unnecessary and my stance is against such a patch as any balance patch may potential ruin the fine wine we have today.
I'm totally fine with criticism. Yet, I think it's also important, even for a concretely developed scene like that in BW, to be open to ideas of change. I totally get that people like it how it is, but if don't understand why people wouldn't even contemplate ways to potentially improve the game.
Now, I will come out and say I haven't been following the amateur scene since the last OSL, but I have been following the current season of KSL and SSL. I have been thinking about this idea of potential change for years. My thoughts and ideas may be outdated but I don't have access to current statistics in race trends so I have to go with what I have. If I'm wrong about the statistics, all you have to do is tell me.
I understand that the units I mentioned aren't considered game-breakers. Sure, hydras are countered by storm. Sure, science vessels can be sniped by scourge. I'm not saying these units are completely overpowered. But in tweaking balance, you can come closer to the perfect 50% winrate for each matchup. I don't think there's any reason to have to avoid conversation or discussion about it.
Sure, there are occasionally reversed trends in the meta like the period after Bisu beat Savior where Protoss were hugely favored against Zerg. But even that trend was stabilized into the current standard of Zergs having a slight advantage against Protoss.
I'm not saying this game is bad. I love this game. I think it's amazing, I think the meta's constantly evolving and growing. I agree that outside factors are totally at play. But I don't think that's any reason to try to avoid talking about balance at all.
If there was another patch. I would rather them address the bugs to make it a cleaner game. For example, fix the goon ai so they don't get stuck as often. Things like that, etc.
On January 21 2015 06:31 SolaR- wrote: If there was another patch. I would rather them address the bugs to make it a cleaner game. For example, fix the goon ai so they don't get stuck as often. Things like that, etc.
That would be a balance patch in some sense because bad goon AI affects game balance. I want the game itself to remain as it is for now and forever. There's something to be said for tradition when the game is already more than good enough.
If Blizzard were to release a patch, then it should be a patch that addresses more mundane matters like
Native windowed mode
Color fix
Direct IP connections for multiplayer
Honestly, even if Blizzard could make the balance "better", I don't want them to "fix" anything. Once those guys start "fixing", they may never stop.
On January 21 2015 06:04 neobowman wrote: I'm totally fine with criticism. Yet, I think it's also important, even for a concretely developed scene like that in BW, to be open to ideas of change. I totally get that people like it how it is, but if don't understand why people wouldn't even contemplate ways to potentially improve the game.
Now, I will come out and say I haven't been following the amateur scene since the last OSL, but I have been following the current season of KSL and SSL. I have been thinking about this idea of potential change for years. My thoughts and ideas may be outdated but I don't have access to current statistics in race trends so I have to go with what I have. If I'm wrong about the statistics, all you have to do is tell me.
I understand that the units I mentioned aren't considered game-breakers. Sure, hydras are countered by storm. Sure, science vessels can be sniped by scourge. I'm not saying these units are completely overpowered. But in tweaking balance, you can come closer to the perfect 50% winrate for each matchup. I don't think there's any reason to have to avoid conversation or discussion about it.
Sure, there are occasionally reversed trends in the meta like the period after Bisu beat Savior where Protoss were hugely favored against Zerg. But even that trend was stabilized into the current standard of Zergs having a slight advantage against Protoss.
I'm not saying this game is bad. I love this game. I think it's amazing, I think the meta's constantly evolving and growing. I agree that outside factors are totally at play. But I don't think that's any reason to try to avoid talking about balance at all.
Not to be disrespectful or offend you but let me give you another quick food for thought to take in from my own perspective:
Not mentioning any other particular/specific game outside of SC BW but in a general POV, every time there is a "balance patch" or "gameplay" changes in the game, who benefits the most, who benefits the least? Who becomes the winners and losers?
The answer is whoever can adapt to new changes, exploit the new changes and lead the new changes.
So what about the rest of people who can't adapt as well as Player 1, or stuck in a limbo of this new change, or find themselves in a whole different position than before (ie. one of the better players before change but not anymore due to factors like balance change or unable to adapt to new settings)?
Their answers will be "the game isn't what it used to be", "lack/lost of interest", "unfair", "retirement". This may very well be minority or majority but you cannot call the game SC BW 1.16.1 anymore, some will say you cannot even call it the same game anymore.
Sure there may be more people welcomed by whatever new set of changes are but there's always a consequence, a pro/con, and those who will be affected by it. What if a balance patch end up being (or even partially) a reason that this/that progamer we know and love quit/retire? What if that turns into a domino factor where the active player base is reduced to 70%, 50%, 25% or even 10%?
There's some truth to reasons why last "official" universal change/patch of board game Chess was last seen in 19th century.
On January 21 2015 05:19 L_Master wrote: Not to mention in the SOSPA era PvT is a terran favored MU. Last I compiled all the games from the TLPD database PvT was 48.2% WR for protoss
Bisu has often said that all maps will eventually move toward favoring Terran at the highest level because of the race's defensive nature. As Terran optimizes how to defend various strategies and tactics on each map, whatever initial disadvantage it had when the map was first released is reduced and whatever advantages it had become magnified.
This leads to an interesting theory-crafting question for map-makers: Should maps initially be designed so that they appear slightly bad for Terran at first glance? If Bisu's theory of eventual Terran optimization holds, then such a map would become balanced over time even if it initially appears bad for Terran.
Ow, that's weird, I thought that terran beats protoss. But anyway. I would love to see more units and spells involved into playing. I play protoss and do feel that each (EACH) protoss unit/spell has great potential. It just requires decent micro and quick-thinking. Scouts sometimes can be Really useful, as well as hallucination, d-web and mind control. But as I think (mind please, that these suggestions aren't founded on any statistics, or years of experience; I just feel it is so, though I may be mistaken ofc). So I think that these units/spells require too much investment. And if corsairs being produced with d-web researched would be way too much and fat, scouts with speed already researched would be really nice. Also, hallucination costs too much energy, imo, 50, instead of 100 mp, would be alright. Then, if energy upgrade for dark archons is researched and u merge 2 dts, that dark archon will still start with 50 energy. This should be fixed as well, I think. Oh, forgot to note, I'd love to increase d-web's duration, and decrease dark swarm's one a bit. This is only my opinion, ofc
Why buff ghosts? These are casters, not fighters, and they are already good. Kinda like arbiters. You need a bunch of ghosts, decent cloning micro and 3 upgrades researched — lockdown ,cloaking and energy upgrade. Then you go and own them, unless they play zerg. Sounds like theorycrafting, but 1. Why not? 2. Boxer did this! here is the proof
EPT
