|
On May 19 2017 07:51 Jealous wrote:
How many more people are going to post random numbers and figures and argue that they represent a trend in balance? How many more silly arguments are we going to see where Maks points out 4 players' relative stats and uses them to explain the overarching issues with the game, with absolutely no statistical analysis whatsoever?
How many more arguments are we going to see about "Terran dominance?" I fucking wish I was home and not on vacation so I could shut you down with some serious knowledge, but for now consider this:
While Terran (Flash) may have won more leagues than Zerg, did you know that Zergs consistently had more players in the top 8/top 16 of every tournament? Doesn't that mean that Zerg is imbalanced, since they can fit more players into the highest echelons of tournaments, and Flash is just that good?
Or wait, perhaps pointing out nominal data and extrapolating them to a mathematical trend without any sort of statistical analysis is the witchdoctor of medicine, the blood-letting of hygiene, the ponzi scheme of economics, the grape Jolly Rancher? In other words, a total joke?
Here is how many of you like to argue about balance:
People with more TVs are imba because more of them get into better secondary education and have better dental hygiene than people with less TVs. TVs make their teeth whiter and increase their chances during applications. My friend Johnny, he got into Dental school because his teeth were so clean, and he had SO many TVs, that he got in no problem. Let's ignore that Johnny had the highest GPA in his high school and did a lot of community service; although, that is probably because he had more TVs too. I mean, look at these statistics:
Chance of going to medical school vs. amount of TVs you own:
10% - 0
15% - 1
30% - 2
80% - 3+
That's right folks, if you have 1 TV and you buy 2 more, you will be more than 5x more likely to get into med school. That's how statistics works. Just look at the years of dominance by TV-having people in the realm of medical school applications, and it becomes clear that TVs are at least slightly OP.
Here's another example:
I take a random sample of 100 TeamLiquid players. 33 of them are Terran, 40 are Zerg, and 27 are Protoss. 10 of them are gay, 1 is trans, and 10 are homophobic. 3 of the 10 gay players are Terran, 3 are Zerg, and 4 are Protoss. That means that 1/11 of Terrans are gay, 3/40 of Zerg are gay, and 4/27 Protoss are gay. 1/11 = .09090909 etc. 3/40 = .075. 4/27= .148. That's right everyone, it's official: Protoss are almost twice as likely to be gay as Zerg are. I have a sample size of 100 players, 67 Zerg/Protoss, and 10 gay players to prove it.
Seriously, do any of you realize that statistics isn't just compelling-sounding word combinations, self-evident subtraction or division, pretty graphs and quaint hypothetical scenarios that only occur in ideal worlds with no mitigating factors, confounding elements, and that everything is causation? FFS I can't anymore.
Wait a few weeks. I will be back with impartial statistical analyses. Until then, wallow in your ignorance.
Those coming up with random stats from recent games to prove imbalance probably didn't even read the thread, or just didn't understand our previous posts.
|
On May 19 2017 02:10 Palmar wrote:
I am not a high level player, but it feels to me that just about everything can be solved by maps, and if the first effort to solve problems with maps doesn't work, they just change the maps even more. I'm pretty sure you can make a map completely imbalanced in favor of ZvT if you wanted. From only moderately crazy stuff like putting two geysers in the main (so zerg doesn't need to worry about getting a 3rd gas as much) to completely bollocks like not having any chokes at all, not even defending the main (aka no wall off).
So while I don't think either of these are a good idea or should be implemented, I feel scenarios like these support the argument that "imbalance can be solved with map making". The thing map makers need to do, and they have done brilliantly for many years, is to identify smaller advantages they can give to help the game feel more balanced.
There is already such a map, it's called Outsider
unfortunately, changes that map Zerg viable vs. Terran completely screw over Protoss in PvZ
Here are some changes that would only affect ZvT:
1. Cliffs where overlords can be safe (preferrably next to bases for scouting). Since Protoss makes a corsair before the first dragoon most of the time, this won't affect PvZ as much. Allows Zerg to be able to suicide an overlord into the main to check for 5 rax. Currently you can just snipe a slow overlord with marines if it's trying to scout.
2. Space behind minerals - in other words, mains should be on a peninsula instead of in the corner. This will make muta stronger against Protoss, but not that much as long as you don't actually put cliffs behind the minerals. This will, however, give a way for muta to escape the Terran base much easier since Terran doesn't get valkyries as often as Protoss gets corsairs. You should still be able to put zealots behind the minerals.
3. Circular mains to allow less space to drop, but enough space to put buildings. That lip in the main in CB really allows Terran a lot more places to drop marines in.
4. Decent block-off against zergling run-byes - although it's a little boring if it's a one zealot block. Allows for Nexus first on larger maps, which is a bit gambly normally. Having to block with three is a bit too much. Maybe two unit block on all spawns?
5. Enough time to morph sunkens against a sunken bust build. This affects PvZ as well, but it affects it both ways - 3 hatch hydra won't be as strong on a larger map.
6. Do not allow Terran to wall in ling-tight with two supply and a barracks in the natural - this makes 8 rax impossible to punish.
So I'm thinking a pretty large 3 player map with equidistant spawns and pleasant locations for overlords.
|
On May 19 2017 13:37 iopq wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2017 02:10 Palmar wrote:
I am not a high level player, but it feels to me that just about everything can be solved by maps, and if the first effort to solve problems with maps doesn't work, they just change the maps even more. I'm pretty sure you can make a map completely imbalanced in favor of ZvT if you wanted. From only moderately crazy stuff like putting two geysers in the main (so zerg doesn't need to worry about getting a 3rd gas as much) to completely bollocks like not having any chokes at all, not even defending the main (aka no wall off).
So while I don't think either of these are a good idea or should be implemented, I feel scenarios like these support the argument that "imbalance can be solved with map making". The thing map makers need to do, and they have done brilliantly for many years, is to identify smaller advantages they can give to help the game feel more balanced. There is already such a map, it's called Outsider unfortunately, changes that map Zerg viable vs. Terran completely screw over Protoss in PvZ Here are some changes that would only affect ZvT: 1. Cliffs where overlords can be safe (preferrably next to bases for scouting). Since Protoss makes a corsair before the first dragoon most of the time, this won't affect PvZ as much. Allows Zerg to be able to suicide an overlord into the main to check for 5 rax. Currently you can just snipe a slow overlord with marines if it's trying to scout. 2. Space behind minerals - in other words, mains should be on a peninsula instead of in the corner. This will make muta stronger against Protoss, but not that much as long as you don't actually put cliffs behind the minerals. This will, however, give a way for muta to escape the Terran base much easier since Terran doesn't get valkyries as often as Protoss gets corsairs. You should still be able to put zealots behind the minerals. 3. Circular mains to allow less space to drop, but enough space to put buildings. That lip in the main in CB really allows Terran a lot more places to drop marines in. 4. Decent block-off against zergling run-byes - although it's a little boring if it's a one zealot block. Allows for Nexus first on larger maps, which is a bit gambly normally. Having to block with three is a bit too much. Maybe two unit block on all spawns? 5. Enough time to morph sunkens against a sunken bust build. This affects PvZ as well, but it affects it both ways - 3 hatch hydra won't be as strong on a larger map. 6. Do not allow Terran to wall in ling-tight with two supply and a barracks in the natural - this makes 8 rax impossible to punish. So I'm thinking a pretty large 3 player map with equidistant spawns and pleasant locations for overlords.
oh don't get me wrong. I was citing extreme examples that I know would never work in reality just to make the point that anything can be achieved if you don't give a shit about other consequences. The point is that if you can achieve an extreme result in either direction, you should theoretically be able to achieve most results in between.
Please don't misunderstand and think I was actually suggesting this as a viable solution. Figuring out the solution is for far more talented people than me to do.
Your ideas sound interesting to me.
|
On May 19 2017 07:51 Jealous wrote:+ Show Spoiler +How many more people are going to post random numbers and figures and argue that they represent a trend in balance? How many more silly arguments are we going to see where Maks points out 4 players' relative stats and uses them to explain the overarching issues with the game, with absolutely no statistical analysis whatsoever?
How many more arguments are we going to see about "Terran dominance?" I fucking wish I was home and not on vacation so I could shut you down with some serious knowledge, but for now consider this:
While Terran (Flash) may have won more leagues than Zerg, did you know that Zergs consistently had more players in the top 8/top 16 of every tournament? Doesn't that mean that Zerg is imbalanced, since they can fit more players into the highest echelons of tournaments, and Flash is just that good?
Or wait, perhaps pointing out nominal data and extrapolating them to a mathematical trend without any sort of statistical analysis is the witchdoctor of medicine, the blood-letting of hygiene, the ponzi scheme of economics, the grape Jolly Rancher? In other words, a total joke?
Here is how many of you like to argue about balance:
People with more TVs are imba because more of them get into better secondary education and have better dental hygiene than people with less TVs. TVs make their teeth whiter and increase their chances during applications. My friend Johnny, he got into Dental school because his teeth were so clean, and he had SO many TVs, that he got in no problem. Let's ignore that Johnny had the highest GPA in his high school and did a lot of community service; although, that is probably because he had more TVs too. I mean, look at these statistics:
Chance of going to medical school vs. amount of TVs you own:
10% - 0
15% - 1
30% - 2
80% - 3+
That's right folks, if you have 1 TV and you buy 2 more, you will be more than 5x more likely to get into med school. That's how statistics works. Just look at the years of dominance by TV-having people in the realm of medical school applications, and it becomes clear that TVs are at least slightly OP.
Here's another example:
I take a random sample of 100 TeamLiquid players. 33 of them are Terran, 40 are Zerg, and 27 are Protoss. 10 of them are gay, 1 is trans, and 10 are homophobic. 3 of the 10 gay players are Terran, 3 are Zerg, and 4 are Protoss. That means that 1/11 of Terrans are gay, 3/40 of Zerg are gay, and 4/27 Protoss are gay. 1/11 = .09090909 etc. 3/40 = .075. 4/27= .148. That's right everyone, it's official: Protoss are almost twice as likely to be gay as Zerg are. I have a sample size of 100 players, 67 Zerg/Protoss, and 10 gay players to prove it.
Seriously, do any of you realize that statistics isn't just compelling-sounding word combinations, self-evident subtraction or division, pretty graphs and quaint hypothetical scenarios that only occur in ideal worlds with no mitigating factors, confounding elements, and that everything is causation? FFS I can't anymore.
Wait a few weeks. I will be back with impartial statistical analyses. Until then, wallow in your ignorance.
This post made me lol so hard and pretty much summarises evry balance whine Thread out there, this one here included. As baku said before, there were tons of these kinda threads created over the past few months and years which is always the same. I don't get it, why do people start making these threads over and over again T_T someone please close this...
|
On May 19 2017 19:29 RedW4rr10r wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2017 07:51 Jealous wrote:+ Show Spoiler +How many more people are going to post random numbers and figures and argue that they represent a trend in balance? How many more silly arguments are we going to see where Maks points out 4 players' relative stats and uses them to explain the overarching issues with the game, with absolutely no statistical analysis whatsoever?
How many more arguments are we going to see about "Terran dominance?" I fucking wish I was home and not on vacation so I could shut you down with some serious knowledge, but for now consider this:
While Terran (Flash) may have won more leagues than Zerg, did you know that Zergs consistently had more players in the top 8/top 16 of every tournament? Doesn't that mean that Zerg is imbalanced, since they can fit more players into the highest echelons of tournaments, and Flash is just that good?
Or wait, perhaps pointing out nominal data and extrapolating them to a mathematical trend without any sort of statistical analysis is the witchdoctor of medicine, the blood-letting of hygiene, the ponzi scheme of economics, the grape Jolly Rancher? In other words, a total joke?
Here is how many of you like to argue about balance:
People with more TVs are imba because more of them get into better secondary education and have better dental hygiene than people with less TVs. TVs make their teeth whiter and increase their chances during applications. My friend Johnny, he got into Dental school because his teeth were so clean, and he had SO many TVs, that he got in no problem. Let's ignore that Johnny had the highest GPA in his high school and did a lot of community service; although, that is probably because he had more TVs too. I mean, look at these statistics:
Chance of going to medical school vs. amount of TVs you own:
10% - 0
15% - 1
30% - 2
80% - 3+
That's right folks, if you have 1 TV and you buy 2 more, you will be more than 5x more likely to get into med school. That's how statistics works. Just look at the years of dominance by TV-having people in the realm of medical school applications, and it becomes clear that TVs are at least slightly OP.
Here's another example:
I take a random sample of 100 TeamLiquid players. 33 of them are Terran, 40 are Zerg, and 27 are Protoss. 10 of them are gay, 1 is trans, and 10 are homophobic. 3 of the 10 gay players are Terran, 3 are Zerg, and 4 are Protoss. That means that 1/11 of Terrans are gay, 3/40 of Zerg are gay, and 4/27 Protoss are gay. 1/11 = .09090909 etc. 3/40 = .075. 4/27= .148. That's right everyone, it's official: Protoss are almost twice as likely to be gay as Zerg are. I have a sample size of 100 players, 67 Zerg/Protoss, and 10 gay players to prove it.
Seriously, do any of you realize that statistics isn't just compelling-sounding word combinations, self-evident subtraction or division, pretty graphs and quaint hypothetical scenarios that only occur in ideal worlds with no mitigating factors, confounding elements, and that everything is causation? FFS I can't anymore.
Wait a few weeks. I will be back with impartial statistical analyses. Until then, wallow in your ignorance. This post made me lol so hard and pretty much summarises evry balance whine Thread out there, this one here included. As baku said before, there were tons of these kinda threads created over the past few months and years which is always the same. I don't get it, why do people start making these threads over and over again T_T someone please close this...
RedW4rr10r your well thought out constructive criticism is highly appreciated.
^_._^
|
On May 19 2017 19:56 ProllTarodies wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2017 19:29 RedW4rr10r wrote:On May 19 2017 07:51 Jealous wrote:+ Show Spoiler +How many more people are going to post random numbers and figures and argue that they represent a trend in balance? How many more silly arguments are we going to see where Maks points out 4 players' relative stats and uses them to explain the overarching issues with the game, with absolutely no statistical analysis whatsoever?
How many more arguments are we going to see about "Terran dominance?" I fucking wish I was home and not on vacation so I could shut you down with some serious knowledge, but for now consider this:
While Terran (Flash) may have won more leagues than Zerg, did you know that Zergs consistently had more players in the top 8/top 16 of every tournament? Doesn't that mean that Zerg is imbalanced, since they can fit more players into the highest echelons of tournaments, and Flash is just that good?
Or wait, perhaps pointing out nominal data and extrapolating them to a mathematical trend without any sort of statistical analysis is the witchdoctor of medicine, the blood-letting of hygiene, the ponzi scheme of economics, the grape Jolly Rancher? In other words, a total joke?
Here is how many of you like to argue about balance:
People with more TVs are imba because more of them get into better secondary education and have better dental hygiene than people with less TVs. TVs make their teeth whiter and increase their chances during applications. My friend Johnny, he got into Dental school because his teeth were so clean, and he had SO many TVs, that he got in no problem. Let's ignore that Johnny had the highest GPA in his high school and did a lot of community service; although, that is probably because he had more TVs too. I mean, look at these statistics:
Chance of going to medical school vs. amount of TVs you own:
10% - 0
15% - 1
30% - 2
80% - 3+
That's right folks, if you have 1 TV and you buy 2 more, you will be more than 5x more likely to get into med school. That's how statistics works. Just look at the years of dominance by TV-having people in the realm of medical school applications, and it becomes clear that TVs are at least slightly OP.
Here's another example:
I take a random sample of 100 TeamLiquid players. 33 of them are Terran, 40 are Zerg, and 27 are Protoss. 10 of them are gay, 1 is trans, and 10 are homophobic. 3 of the 10 gay players are Terran, 3 are Zerg, and 4 are Protoss. That means that 1/11 of Terrans are gay, 3/40 of Zerg are gay, and 4/27 Protoss are gay. 1/11 = .09090909 etc. 3/40 = .075. 4/27= .148. That's right everyone, it's official: Protoss are almost twice as likely to be gay as Zerg are. I have a sample size of 100 players, 67 Zerg/Protoss, and 10 gay players to prove it.
Seriously, do any of you realize that statistics isn't just compelling-sounding word combinations, self-evident subtraction or division, pretty graphs and quaint hypothetical scenarios that only occur in ideal worlds with no mitigating factors, confounding elements, and that everything is causation? FFS I can't anymore.
Wait a few weeks. I will be back with impartial statistical analyses. Until then, wallow in your ignorance. This post made me lol so hard and pretty much summarises evry balance whine Thread out there, this one here included. As baku said before, there were tons of these kinda threads created over the past few months and years which is always the same. I don't get it, why do people start making these threads over and over again T_T someone please close this... RedW4rr10r your well thought out constructive criticism is highly appreciated. ^_._^
xD
Well, on a serious note though, there have been a lot of these kind of threads and this topic has been discussed sooooo much and, quite frankly, it is annoying to have this topic once again with repeating cases/statements/"proofs" etc.
|
On May 19 2017 19:29 RedW4rr10r wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2017 07:51 Jealous wrote:+ Show Spoiler +How many more people are going to post random numbers and figures and argue that they represent a trend in balance? How many more silly arguments are we going to see where Maks points out 4 players' relative stats and uses them to explain the overarching issues with the game, with absolutely no statistical analysis whatsoever?
How many more arguments are we going to see about "Terran dominance?" I fucking wish I was home and not on vacation so I could shut you down with some serious knowledge, but for now consider this:
While Terran (Flash) may have won more leagues than Zerg, did you know that Zergs consistently had more players in the top 8/top 16 of every tournament? Doesn't that mean that Zerg is imbalanced, since they can fit more players into the highest echelons of tournaments, and Flash is just that good?
Or wait, perhaps pointing out nominal data and extrapolating them to a mathematical trend without any sort of statistical analysis is the witchdoctor of medicine, the blood-letting of hygiene, the ponzi scheme of economics, the grape Jolly Rancher? In other words, a total joke?
Here is how many of you like to argue about balance:
People with more TVs are imba because more of them get into better secondary education and have better dental hygiene than people with less TVs. TVs make their teeth whiter and increase their chances during applications. My friend Johnny, he got into Dental school because his teeth were so clean, and he had SO many TVs, that he got in no problem. Let's ignore that Johnny had the highest GPA in his high school and did a lot of community service; although, that is probably because he had more TVs too. I mean, look at these statistics:
Chance of going to medical school vs. amount of TVs you own:
10% - 0
15% - 1
30% - 2
80% - 3+
That's right folks, if you have 1 TV and you buy 2 more, you will be more than 5x more likely to get into med school. That's how statistics works. Just look at the years of dominance by TV-having people in the realm of medical school applications, and it becomes clear that TVs are at least slightly OP.
Here's another example:
I take a random sample of 100 TeamLiquid players. 33 of them are Terran, 40 are Zerg, and 27 are Protoss. 10 of them are gay, 1 is trans, and 10 are homophobic. 3 of the 10 gay players are Terran, 3 are Zerg, and 4 are Protoss. That means that 1/11 of Terrans are gay, 3/40 of Zerg are gay, and 4/27 Protoss are gay. 1/11 = .09090909 etc. 3/40 = .075. 4/27= .148. That's right everyone, it's official: Protoss are almost twice as likely to be gay as Zerg are. I have a sample size of 100 players, 67 Zerg/Protoss, and 10 gay players to prove it.
Seriously, do any of you realize that statistics isn't just compelling-sounding word combinations, self-evident subtraction or division, pretty graphs and quaint hypothetical scenarios that only occur in ideal worlds with no mitigating factors, confounding elements, and that everything is causation? FFS I can't anymore.
Wait a few weeks. I will be back with impartial statistical analyses. Until then, wallow in your ignorance. This post made me lol so hard and pretty much summarises evry balance whine Thread out there, this one here included. As baku said before, there were tons of these kinda threads created over the past few months and years which is always the same. I don't get it, why do people start making these threads over and over again T_T someone please close this...
if you are annoyed by a discussion you might just not participate in it instead of trying to tell people to shut up lol, that's just weird, balance is many things, I'm tired of being "forbidden" to talk about it on TL and threads buried, that's why they keep coming back cause some people try to prevent others from discussing a topic, we're not even actually trying to push for a patch just discussing.... I don't rly want blizzard to come up with a patch now, but I'm interested in discussing yo, is what forums are for isn't it
|
The Korean Kespa era has shown that balancing the game through maps is extremely effective and probably the way to go.
The only difficulty is tuning map parameters in such a way so you can tune TvP balance and not affect TvZ and PvZ balance, for example. That seems very hard or even impossible.
There is a solution. Have a slightly different version of the same map for each matchup. For example, you can narrow or widen a ramp. Or even change the number of mineral patches at expansions.
And as nicely balanced as SC is, despite Blizzard's efforts, we should also realize how odd and asymmetrical the balance is. For example, defilers in ZvT. That matchup is oh so focused around one ability. That cannot be sound design principle, even though it works. Of course, it shouldn't be changed, because of Blizzard's incompetence as well as preserving that what is good. Therefore, with SC2 Blizzard should have tried to make a more robust novel and creative version of SC BW. But of course, they had no vision or insights into basic RTS on their dev team, despite lonely David Kim, who quickly realized just to stop caring and to just collect his paycheck.
User was banned for this post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
