EPTHypothetical Balance Patch - Page 8
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
frontliner2
Netherlands844 Posts
| ||
c3rberUs
Japan11293 Posts
On January 23 2015 16:56 SnowFantasy wrote: Yeah but is Scan really a foreigner? Let's discuss that. If you buff the Koreans it will result in imbalance imo. Balance should be a 50 percent chance that one player will win, disregarding individual skill and other factors outside of gameplay of course. However, for fun I'd like to do ay of these to Terran. Cause Terran op.  -Remove repair imba by allowing damaged stuff to be repaired to only to 75% of the original HP or just slow down repair rate. -Vultures to 100 mineral cost or even 125. Zealots cost more than a vulture and yet vults can kill ultras even without being there. Imagine a shopping network show. "Guys, if you call now you can get the amazing vulture for ONLY 75 minerals, buuUUT wait! There's more! If you add 100 minerals and 100 gas, you will get not 1, not 2, but 3 mini-nukes for absolutely free! Don't take this too seriously. | ||
|
[[Starlight]]
United States1578 Posts
On January 23 2015 19:57 frontliner2 wrote: Marine damage should be 7 not 6 Why?  | ||
|
TelecoM
United States10785 Posts
| ||
|
neobowman
Canada3324 Posts
On January 23 2015 19:21 LilClinkin wrote: Finally, if Bob were to play some one of significantly greater skill, you would want to see his win-rate decline below 50% when all of his strategies are randomly selected and pitted against his opponent. With proper application of meta-game, Bob's win rate should approach 0% regardless of what Bob chooses to do, as his opponent carefully selects only those strategies that defeat Bob regardless of what Bob does. For instance, if Bob played Flash, Flash would choose safe openers which carry him into the mid- and late- game, allowing his mechanics to shine and ultimately crush Bob regardless of what Bob chooses to do. Flash could choose to be risky and open double CC first, but why should he open himself to unnecessary risk? Bob might 4-pool and win. tl:dr: Assymetry is GOOD. Balance whiners may as well sit on a see-saw with some one of equal weight and bet on coin flips. This argument seems to be arguing for individual winrates, if I am understanding it correctly. I think everyone would agree that letting an individual influence their winrate is a good thing. What I'm arguing against is a racial imbalance for everyone. We can take it to the logical extreme by supposing that Zergs lose 90% of the time against Terran. In that situation, a skilled Zerg player could win, say, 15% of their games while an unskilled would win 5%. That doesn't seem to be a situation where the better player wins. Once both races are evenly matched, that's when player skill can actually show. | ||
|
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
On January 23 2015 19:21 LilClinkin wrote: For BW to function as a 'balanced' competitive game there needs to exist a state that for any strategy, given both players of an equal skill level, there is a valid counter-strategy that can be executed to win. The success rate of the individual strategy does not have to be 50%. All that needs to be 50% is the total sum of wins if all possible strategy selections from player A were pitted against all possible strategy selections from player B. In fact, individual strategies that have a success rate of 50% are bad because choosing them is tantamount to flipping a coin. If all individual strategies had a 50% to succeed, the meta-game would be non-existent. I kind of take issue with the "equal skill" phrase because no two people are equal in skill. Even if their measure of skill is an approximation, one player is still going to have something the other does not. | ||
|
GeckoXp
Germany2016 Posts
On January 23 2015 11:30 ninazerg wrote: I think the results are kind of skewed because Sziky and Scan have won so many tours. I really don't think their wins are a matter of imbalance, but just shows how talented they are. But I meant all the tours on the list, not just the main ones. And it still doesn't change that the next 10 players after them do not play Protoss as well and are mostly Zerg. It doesn't change the fact that you tried to give data as proof for something that isn't anywhere close to what you tried to say. | ||
|
Xyik
Canada728 Posts
| ||
|
Boonbag
France3318 Posts
On January 23 2015 02:14 ninazerg wrote: Hey, I just wanted to say that the tone of my last post was legitimately mean and I would like to apologize to you personally. I'm not gonna sit here and make any excuses for why I was so rude, but I don't know what I was thinking, but it's embarrassing to look at that and go "Wow, I was really rude to this guy." So I would like to say I'm sorry to you, and everyone who took the time to read that. Additionally, if anyone read through it and thought "Hey, this guy is an idiot! lololol" then I would ask you to kindly give neobowman a chance and hear him out and not be as disrespectful as I was. lmao User was warned for this post | ||
|
[[Starlight]]
United States1578 Posts
On January 24 2015 03:29 Xyik wrote: I think they should buff Scout ground damage, lower Scout build time and decrease Mind Control cost. Buffing Scout ground damage some makes sense. Doing that AND lowering Scout build time could be problematical. At what point does a buffed ground damage 'scout rush' start to be a problem/borderline OP? I could see T having problems dealing with it potentially. Decrease Mind Control cost? Urk. If you had it at 125 or 100 mana, then a single Dark Archon could potentially Mind Control TWO capital ships or ultras one right after the other. So, 4 BCs or Carriers or Ultras are incoming... no prob, just MC two of 'em, and have them fight the other 2. One Dark Archon completely halts a 4 BC or Carrier or Ultra attack all by itself. Seems a bit too good. If you wanted more MC, maybe something like having it not drain the DA's shields would be a better way to go, IMO. | ||
|
404AlphaSquad
839 Posts
On January 24 2015 06:11 [[Starlight]] wrote: Buffing Scout ground damage some makes sense. Doing that AND lowering Scout build time could be problematical. At what point does a buffed ground damage 'scout rush' start to be a problem/borderline OP? I could see T having problems dealing with it. From my experience: you are right. terran would have trouble with early scouts. | ||
|
lemmata
468 Posts
On January 24 2015 02:38 ninazerg wrote: I kind of take issue with the "equal skill" phrase because no two people are equal in skill. Even if their measure of skill is an approximation, one player is still going to have something the other does not. Indeed! "Skill" is not well-defined. Rather than "skill" what each player has is a skill profile---a combination of specific skills. Broadly, you might say that a player has macro skills and micro skills, but even that's not specific enough. There are many different specific micro skills. The same goes for macro. For example, compare Bisu and Stork. Stork was better at carrier micro but Bisu was better at probe micro. What this means is that the skill profiles of most players cannot be ranked against each other!!! In order to say that Player A is more skilled than Player B, it must be the case that A must be better in every skill dimension than B is. Chew on that for a second. In fact there is no single number that captures the overall skill of a player. The number that comes closest is winning percentage. Being good at a skill that does not contribute much to winning should be less important than being good at a skill that does contribute a lot to winning. That relationship between a specific skill and winning percentage is determined by the game. However, given any Player A, I can always find at least one player who has equal skill: himself! Suppose that we "balanced" the game so that two players of equal skill would have equal chances of winning any match up. This means that Bisu's Protoss versus Bisu's Terran should be a coin flip if equal effort were expended. I do not want such a game. I imagine that most fans of the pro scene do not either. It is often said that, at the pro level (after an honest and strong effort to design maps that balance win rates), P slightly counters T, T slightly counters Z, and Z slightly counters P. However, this isn't true for everyone and this isn't true for every game. The Korean casters often mention what is called "인간상성" as an element that makes the game more exciting. It is roughly translated as "human hard counter". Because of a particular skill profile possessed by Player A, he might be very good against Player B. Pure was bad vs Bisu, but great against Stork. Jaedong was the most successful ZvZ player by far, but he suffered in matchups against Hydra. Soulkey was way better against Fantasy than he was against other top Terrans. I imagine that most complaints about skill being unfairly rewarded mean that too much of the complainer's pride is tied up in the game. Heck, even if someone wins more games by switching races, that just means that the person's specific combination of skills was better suited for another race. Could the game be improved? Yes. That's true of pretty much any game. Is it already the best RTS game in the history of gaming? Yes. Do we want to risk breaking it? Hell, no. | ||
Falling
Canada11581 Posts
On January 24 2015 06:28 404AlphaSquad wrote: From my experience: you are right. terran would have trouble with early scouts. On the plus side... the Stove build just got a little more viable  | ||
|
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
On January 24 2015 03:18 GeckoXp wrote: And it still doesn't change that the next 10 players after them do not play Protoss as well and are mostly Zerg. It doesn't change the fact that you tried to give data as proof for something that isn't anywhere close to what you tried to say. List starts from Defiler Tour #5, includes Defi tours, KidCa tours, gaz tours, and other minor tournaments. Winners, by race: Zerg - 86 Protoss - 44 Terran - 59 Average: 63 per race Zerg wins without Sziky and Trutacz: 50 Zerg wins without Sziky: 61 Average wins-per-race without Sziky: 51 Zerg win% with Sziky/Trutacz: 44% Protoss win% with Sziky/Trutacz: 24% Terran win% with Sziky/Trutacz: 32% Zerg win% without Sziky/Trutacz: 33% Protoss win% without Sziky/Trutacz: 29% Terran win% without Sziky/Trutacz: 38% Individual wins: Sziky: 25 Trutacz: 11 Scan: 10 eonzerg: 9 Gargoyle: 8 LancerX: 4 spx: 4 dewalt-: 3 Bakuryu: 2 Jumper: 2 TechnicS: 2 | ||
|
GeckoXp
Germany2016 Posts
On January 24 2015 07:09 ninazerg wrote: List starts from Defiler Tour #5, includes Defi tours, KidCa tours, gaz tours, and other minor tournaments. Winners, by race: Zerg - 86 Protoss - 44 Terran - 59 Average: 63 per race Zerg wins without Sziky and Trutacz: 50 Zerg wins without Sziky: 61 Average wins-per-race without Sziky: 51 Zerg win% with Sziky/Trutacz: 44% Protoss win% with Sziky/Trutacz: 24% Terran win% with Sziky/Trutacz: 32% Zerg win% without Sziky/Trutacz: 33% Protoss win% without Sziky/Trutacz: 29% Terran win% without Sziky/Trutacz: 38% Individual wins: Sziky: 25 Trutacz: 11 Scan: 10 eonzerg: 9 Gargoyle: 8 LancerX: 4 spx: 4 dewalt-: 3 Bakuryu: 2 Jumper: 2 TechnicS: 2 And what's the point now, you basically take away players without justification - or because they are "more talented" - to make your point? It's a fact that foreign BW has a Zerg problem. Actually, we also have a Terran problem according to your logic, because we'd have to erase Gargoyle (won too much), Heme (too talented) and we'd all be like shieeet. | ||
|
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
On January 24 2015 07:14 GeckoXp wrote: And what's the point now, you basically take away players without justification - or because they are "more talented" - to make your point? It's a fact that foreign BW has a Zerg problem. Actually, we also have a Terran problem according to your logic, because we'd have to erase Gargoyle (won too much), Heme (too talented) and we'd all be like shieeet. Well, since you've told me on many, many occasions how much you 'hate' Zerg, I find it rather unsurprising that you would take this position. All I'm showing here is that percentages are skewed in favor of Zerg because of a couple of players. If there were 10 tours, and 6 of them were won by Zerg, and each was a different individual player, I would agree with you, but unfortunately for you, this is not the case. | ||
|
GeckoXp
Germany2016 Posts
On January 24 2015 07:30 ninazerg wrote: Well, since you've told me on many, many occasions how much you 'hate' Zerg, I find it rather unsurprising that you would take this position. All I'm showing here is that percentages are skewed in favor of Zerg because of a couple of players. If there were 10 tours, and 6 of them were won by Zerg, and each was a different individual player, I would agree with you, but unfortunately for you, this is not the case. And you're trying to make up numbers to make a case for ... not sure for what exactly. I never said anywhere that the foreign Zerg would be undeserved winners - especially not Sziky or trutaCz given how many games they played. I simply stated that foreign winners tend to be Zerg heavy. In the first post I quoted you made it sound as if this was not the case, then in the second to last post you dig out numbers that say exactly the opposite, but exclude two players randomly, because "they're just more talented" (which I still do not dispute). There are way, way more flaws in the statistics you did, e.g. that half of your numbers are wrong by 2% due to a typo, I assume, or that you count Scan as Scan and therefore Terran, when he half assed off raced in half of the tours, or that there are tours where only a handful of top tier players registered are compared to the MMM Tours, or that you say tour wins equal finishes by race. Disregard all that. Actually: LOOK AT ALL THE DEFILER TOURNAMENTS. NO WAIT I DIDNT SAY THAT, I SAID LOOK AT EVERY TOUR BUT DO NOT LOOK AT DEFILER EXCLUSIVELY. AND THEN DONT E V E R LOOK AT SZIKY. OR TRUTACZ [who doesn't matter stats wise for the defiler circuit with actual promotion and all]. Whatever. Yes, I do loathe playing Zerg and I could puke every time I see Zerglings running through a wall on a map I rarely play, 'cause it feels like wasted time. <insert more examples that are annoying, e.g. random Hydra busts you missed to scout, cause Probe said no, I be seing this wall now and then scout inside of Zergling stomach hehehe>. Yet, I do not claim the game is imbalanced. My statement was: foreign Zerg win more. As to why, no idea. Probably it all boils down to some unobserved things, e.g. Zerg being able to play more effectively in the same time span than Protoss or Protoss more than Terran (which would explain why there are less top level Terrans than Toss in return). Just a thought, no proof, no indication. To elaborate, play ten ZvZs and try to play ten TvTs, then tell me who can train more with a limited amount of time outside of a professional scene. | ||
|
vOdToasT
Sweden2870 Posts
On January 24 2015 08:14 GeckoXp wrote: Yes, I do loathe playing Zerg and I could puke every time I see Zerglings running through a wall on a map I rarely play, 'cause it feels like wasted time. <insert more examples that are annoying, e.g. random Hydra busts you missed to scout, cause Probe said no, I be seing this wall now and then scout inside of Zergling stomach hehehe>. Yet, I do not claim the game is imbalanced. My statement was: foreign Zerg win more. As to why, no idea. Probably it all boils down to some unobserved things, e.g. Zerg being able to play more effectively in the same time span than Protoss or Protoss more than Terran (which would explain why there are less top level Terrans than Toss in return). Just a thought, no proof, no indication. To elaborate, play ten ZvZs and try to play ten TvTs, then tell me who can train more with a limited amount of time outside of a professional scene. That doesn't account for why Protoss was domianting the foreign scene in 2007 - 2010 My hypothesis is that the current state of the game favours Zerg at our skill level, and in the past, the state of the game favoured Protoss at the current foreign skill level. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11581 Posts
| ||
|
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
Okay. | ||
| ||
