|
On January 14 2019 06:43 MrMischelito wrote:
I really like how balance was adjusted and maintained by map design only for 17 years (!) without a single "balance patch".
I wonder why this was never possible for sc2. I guess with one expansion too many and yearly game-breaking redesigns of the gameplay, it is just a different philosophy...
Broodwar was a game first and then became a real e-sport after people learned to play around its quirks.
Sc2 tried to be an esport immediately without letting the community build strategies around its imbalances.
|
I reread this thread and really enjoyed all of the different posters insights.
|
On January 18 2019 09:32 Alpha-NP- wrote:
I reread this thread and really enjoyed all of the different posters insights.
Me too , Alpha-NP , even if i don't have an opinion about it!
for me , as a protoss player, i am more confident in my PvT , rather than PvZ 
|
On January 18 2019 19:17 prosatan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2019 09:32 Alpha-NP- wrote:
I reread this thread and really enjoyed all of the different posters insights. Me too , Alpha-NP , even if i don't have an opinion about it! for me , as a protoss player, i am more confident in my PvT , rather than PvZ
Well you're supposed to, and more likely to do so, to fit the general P>T>Z>P statistic
On January 10 2019 01:26 [AS]Rattus wrote:
so protoss players have hardest time and are therefore best players and human beings.
understood.
So Bisu is the best player ever and Flash only dominated because of his race? Thank you BigFan for the clarification!
|
I feel Flash would have dominated no matter which race he played.
|
On January 18 2019 06:05 SilentchiLL wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2019 06:43 MrMischelito wrote:
I really like how balance was adjusted and maintained by map design only for 17 years (!) without a single "balance patch".
I wonder why this was never possible for sc2. I guess with one expansion too many and yearly game-breaking redesigns of the gameplay, it is just a different philosophy... Broodwar was a game first and then became a real e-sport after people learned to play around its quirks. Sc2 tried to be an esport immediately without letting the community build strategies around its imbalances.
No offense, Im very glad Blizzard didnt just leave SC2 as it was in WoL, like seriously, come on.
|
Bisutopia19299 Posts
On January 19 2019 01:32 Psyonic_Reaver wrote:
I feel Flash would have dominated no matter which race he played.
How about Savior who used to practice Terran in order to understand the matchup better? I think if Savior chose Terran he could have been up there with Flash and Nada.
|
On January 19 2019 04:14 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2019 01:32 Psyonic_Reaver wrote:
I feel Flash would have dominated no matter which race he played. How about Savior who used to practice Terran in order to understand the matchup better? I think if Savior chose Terran he could have been up there with Flash and Nada.
Disagree.
sAviOr still plays, and he's not even remotely close to the same level that a top zerg like EffOrt is. He's STILL doing the same shit he always used to do even after all these years. He's barely changed the way he plays at all.
Flash and NaDa are both incredibly creative and innovative. Hell, we've just seen NaDa come up with a crazy strategy in TvZ. Flash has so many variations in his TvZ builds that completely destroy zergs with unique timing attacks.
sAviOr was absolutely incredible in 2006 (especially near the end of 2006) no one is going to deny that. It takes immense talent to do what he did. But the reason why he couldn't survive the test of time has nothing to do with the race he played.
|
You mean besides the fact that he match fixed? =p
|
On January 20 2019 06:56 Psyonic_Reaver wrote:
You mean besides the fact that he match fixed? =p
I'm no Savior apologist but how is this relevant?
|
On January 10 2019 21:50 vOdToasT wrote:
At lower levels, Protoss is the strongest, but that doesn't matter; just git gud.
At very high levels, Protoss is slightly weaker than Zerg and Terran. We should solve this with maps. Blue Storm is an example of a Protoss favoured PvZ map, and La Mancha is an example of a Protoss favoured PvT map. I'm not saying that we should make it imbalanced in the other direction, but I am saying that we should adopt maps that are slightly more Protoss favoured than the norm is today (No more FS and CB).
What would a map that is good for Protoss in both PvZ and PvT look like? The third base for Terran would need to be difficult to take, or be a mineral only, or both. Taking a fourth base should also be made difficult for mech. For PvZ, we should avoid free main bases behind natural expos. Make expansions very open and hard to defend with sunken spore lurker. If Terran only gets a mineral only, but Protoss gets a full expansion, that's good for Protoss.
An additional possibility is to go with very open, hard to defend expansions, but to also give players an expansion with two geysers that is not viable for mech as a third base, but which is viable for P and Z. Giving this one base a choke point might be better for P in PvZ.
Edit: Statistics from various time periods, as well as strategic analysis, prove that my claims about La Mancha and Blue Storm are correct. Thus, it is possible to make maps that are better for Protoss. We should admit that Protoss is slightly weak on FS and CB, and move on to more Protoss favoured (thus more balanced) maps.
I am not advocating for going so far that it actually becomes imbalanced. I only advocate moving slightly in the direction of what is Protoss favoured.
Other examples of Protoss favoured maps include Outlier and Central Plains. These maps, especially Central Plains, went too far and were actually significantly imbalanced in favour of Protoss in both match ups, but they prove that balance is all about maps. That Protoss is slightly underpowered in the normal ecosystem is a result of maps.
I really thought this post was interesting Voddy. How would a map look like that is favorable to Zerg in ZvT? And why is Blue Storm P favored in PvZ?
|
On January 30 2019 13:27 Alpha-NP- wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2019 21:50 vOdToasT wrote:
At lower levels, Protoss is the strongest, but that doesn't matter; just git gud.
At very high levels, Protoss is slightly weaker than Zerg and Terran. We should solve this with maps. Blue Storm is an example of a Protoss favoured PvZ map, and La Mancha is an example of a Protoss favoured PvT map. I'm not saying that we should make it imbalanced in the other direction, but I am saying that we should adopt maps that are slightly more Protoss favoured than the norm is today (No more FS and CB).
What would a map that is good for Protoss in both PvZ and PvT look like? The third base for Terran would need to be difficult to take, or be a mineral only, or both. Taking a fourth base should also be made difficult for mech. For PvZ, we should avoid free main bases behind natural expos. Make expansions very open and hard to defend with sunken spore lurker. If Terran only gets a mineral only, but Protoss gets a full expansion, that's good for Protoss.
An additional possibility is to go with very open, hard to defend expansions, but to also give players an expansion with two geysers that is not viable for mech as a third base, but which is viable for P and Z. Giving this one base a choke point might be better for P in PvZ.
Edit: Statistics from various time periods, as well as strategic analysis, prove that my claims about La Mancha and Blue Storm are correct. Thus, it is possible to make maps that are better for Protoss. We should admit that Protoss is slightly weak on FS and CB, and move on to more Protoss favoured (thus more balanced) maps.
I am not advocating for going so far that it actually becomes imbalanced. I only advocate moving slightly in the direction of what is Protoss favoured.
Other examples of Protoss favoured maps include Outlier and Central Plains. These maps, especially Central Plains, went too far and were actually significantly imbalanced in favour of Protoss in both match ups, but they prove that balance is all about maps. That Protoss is slightly underpowered in the normal ecosystem is a result of maps. I really thought this post was interesting Voddy. How would a map look like that is favorable to Zerg in ZvT? And why is Blue Storm P favored in PvZ?
Zerg maps are ones that have close air range. For example:
 DMZ
Raid Assault (iirc)
|
When I think of Starcraft and unfairness I think about micro physics and mechanical error that is present in computers, machines which may do a lot but are also all different and unique and prone to failures and shortcomings equally unique and individual. I think of playing Starcraft like trying to jump start a car, takes one or two working engines and some cables. Is it unfair that some cars engines run faster better and cleaner than others? Yes
|
On January 30 2019 16:52 MightyBeast wrote:
When I think of Starcraft and unfairness I think about micro physics and mechanical error that is present in computers, machines which may do a lot but are also all different and unique and prone to failures and shortcomings equally unique and individual. I think of playing Starcraft like trying to jump start a car, takes one or two working engines and some cables. Is it unfair that some cars engines run faster better and cleaner than others? Yes
Imo:
Terran = Lambo
Zerg = Porsche
Protoss = Lada
|
This is how you make a decent conclusion with 1% of work:
- how often was zesagi argued?
- how often was prosagi argued?
- how often was tesagi argued?
Conclusion, Tesagi exists. To which degree?
Read the OP.
|
They were briefly mentioned before by others, so I wanted to plug a couple of old posts I made on my own analysis of Terran in the BW balance equation: Balance and Bonjwas Part 1 and Part 2. My larger thoughts on Terran in the balance game at the pro level (in essence exactly this topic) are contained there. Ultimately I came to the conclusion described in this blog post: definitions are key and we can’t really agree on those so all this stuff ultimately tends to go nowhere.
In addition, I do have to share a couple other problems I see with the data set that we’re looking at. First, I’d say we’re working with a very small sample size of what can be semi-formally considered “pro games” - the post Kespa era kind of blurs the line and makes it hard to analyze that in a meaningful way because balance is very skill-sensitive. But more worrisome than that, the BW scene right now isn’t exactly organically developed; balance depends often far more on which top tier players from a bygone era return or play at their peak than on who, over time, developed to be the best. Same thing was true at the tail end of the BW era when players were jumping ship to SC2, and it throws massive noise into the entire process. That’s one of the reasons I wanted to stick to only pro games myself.
Always one of those recurring topic that draws big crowds, and I’m a bit sorry I was late to the party since it seems like we already had it out for this round of Terran balance talk.
|
On January 30 2019 21:17 niteReloaded wrote:
This is how you make a decent conclusion with 1% of work:
- how often was zesagi argued?
- how often was prosagi argued?
- how often was tesagi argued?
Conclusion, Tesagi exists. To which degree?
Read the OP.
This is actually an interesting point.
|
I think a discussion about balance is more meaningful when we talk about intended game outcome vs what we have. Like, im not interested in whether pvt is 'balanced', since thats up in the air, ambiguous as to what level we should be aiming at, and contriveable with maps. What i want is a match up with strategical complexity, strategical growth on both sides of the matchup [reactively and proactively], multiple possible styles, etc.
Like, if were purely framing the discussion as a point of balance, we miss discussing the mirrors, which do need discussion. zvz unquestionably doesnt meet the standards of the other matchups.
You could make a case that zvt is balanced as is, at least in the sense of: we are basically all ok with it. But is the gameplay what we should really want? Terran has a huge array of strategical options [which is likely a large factor in their historic dominance in the matchup and generally] whereas zerg has very little. In the late game, terran has many options-- all of which are countered by dark swarm and camping, which also happens to be every non cheese zerg gameplan. Use defilers cost efficiently and camp until your economy is overwhelming. It may or may not be balanced; but is it the proper kind of design going forward? zvt as played is also hugely destructive physically, which should bear into the conversation as well.
edit: similar question about zvp, balanced or not, is the best design a matchup where protoss play a game of 'catch the all in' half the time [and almost all pvz cheeses are out of meta and hurt by current map design] ?
More important than ambiguous balance: well developed match ups. Thats the discussion we should be aiming at.
edit: remember, that behind every sentiment of decrying something as imbalanced is this: I am not enjoying x matchup, I find it frustrating to play. imbalance complaints are not merely whining, they are gameplay criticisms to be taken seriously.
|
I recently opened the tab in bw which displays the race win-percentages per map. Some of the numbers:
HBR - toss have won 40% of their games.
Aztec- toss have won 40% of their games.
CB - toss have won 40% of their games.
FS - toss have won 41% of their games.
How would those numbers match the - widely as gospel seen - assumption that P is not at a disadvantage up until the top-top level?
|
On January 31 2019 19:09 molotow[eef] wrote:
I recently opened the tab in bw which displays the race win-percentages per map. Some of the numbers:
HBR - toss have won 40% of their games.
Aztec- toss have won 40% of their games.
CB - toss have won 40% of their games.
FS - toss have won 41% of their games.
How would those numbers match the - widely as gospel seen - assumption that P is not at a disadvantage up until the top-top level?
There is something else to take into consideration for statistics, it's the number of players. I believe there are more protoss than zerg and terran, therefore it's bound to lower their winrate. To have reliable stats we would need to know how many players there are in each race.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
