EPT[ASL10] Ro8 Day 4 - Page 10
| Forum Index > Brood War Tournaments |
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
| ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4112 Posts
On October 28 2020 06:37 kaspa84 wrote: Faulty logic. If you affirm that it is not unbalanced it SHOULD not be 55/45, which is pretty unbalanced in Bo5s. No, it's not faulty. The data so far indicates that BW is balanced, however that doesn't mean it's a perfect balance (perfect balance in BW - be it static through history or temporary - is impossible for a number of reasons). When I say "BW is balanced" that means a few things: 1) It's as balanced as it can be. 2) We don't have knowledge on how to make it more balanced (for that we'd have to know what a more balanced scenario actually looks like, and no one has that information for many reasons). 3) There's no proof that BW is in fact unbalanced to a degree that it requires a patch in order to be more fair at any given skill level. 4) BW is balanced insofar as we have allowed it to be balanced. What this means is the following: the idea of a perfectly balanced game of BW rests on a number of factors like the map design, the meta of the game at each skill level, the discovery of novel mechanics and strategies, the human (in)ability to further push the boundaries, and a bunch of statistical noise. In other words it's not just impossible to figure out how balanced or imbalanced BW really is, it's also impossible to further balance it without pulling at a number of strings unrelated to the core game design. However, we do have data on the overall balance of the game, and even though that balance has never been perfect throughout history, it has shifted in various directions throughout history (for many reasons). There's a reason why many BW players have (rightfully) always protested against any and all measures from Blizzard to interfere with the game design after the earliest patches - sometimes to the point of asking for actual bugs to not be fixed. | ||
|
AttackZerg
United States7454 Posts
On October 28 2020 10:25 Starlightsun wrote: Oh man didn't even know ASL was going on. And Flash playing random! I have a lot of vods to watch. Don't miss the round of 32, and round of 16, some of the best games of the year are in those two rounds. Flash as random was overshadowed early on by some great matches. Enjoy. | ||
|
oxKnu
1181 Posts
On October 28 2020 10:48 Magic Powers wrote: No, it's not faulty. The data so far indicates that BW is balanced, however that doesn't mean it's a perfect balance (perfect balance in BW - be it static through history or temporary - is impossible for a number of reasons). When I say "BW is balanced" that means a few things: 1) It's as balanced as it can be. 2) We don't have knowledge on how to make it more balanced (for that we'd have to know what a more balanced scenario actually looks like, and no one has that information for many reasons). 3) There's no proof that BW is in fact unbalanced to a degree that it requires a patch in order to be more fair at any given skill level. 4) BW is balanced insofar as we have allowed it to be balanced. What this means is the following: the idea of a perfectly balanced game of BW rests on a number of factors like the map design, the meta of the game at each skill level, the discovery of novel mechanics and strategies, the human (in)ability to further push the boundaries, and a bunch of statistical noise. In other words it's not just impossible to figure out how balanced or imbalanced BW really is, it's also impossible to further balance it without pulling at a number of strings unrelated to the core game design. However, we do have data on the overall balance of the game, and even though that balance has never been perfect throughout history, it has shifted in various directions throughout history (for many reasons). There's a reason why many BW players have (rightfully) always protested against any and all measures from Blizzard to interfere with the game design after the earliest patches - sometimes to the point of asking for actual bugs to not be fixed. I think historically PvZ has always been viewed as imbalanced (to some degree at least). Another factor that is important is that the level that BW is being played today is better than 10 years ago. The top players know way more about the game and what are the best strategies to execute on a given map in a particular scenario (simply because they've tried every strat under the sun, a lot of times under competitive circumstances against high level competition - because of streaming which gives you daily matches against all of the other top players). So with all that I think the discrepancies in balances are now clearer and easier to execute. There's a lot of old-timers and people that fight change no matter what. Because of nostalgia, because they really don't keep up with how the meta evolves etc... But like in most games, there comes a point where you have to re-asses and after all these seasons of ASL (and KSL) where Protoss has looked as debilitated as ever against any high level Zerg I think it's time to lay some changes on the table. And yes, everyone knows that Blizzard is incompetent, however balance changes are not rocket science since it's just a calibration of resource cost/time expenditure/damage output. | ||
|
Dante08
Singapore4128 Posts
| ||
|
LpTraxamillion
265 Posts
On October 28 2020 01:36 kaspa84 wrote: But there are enormous amounts of stomps in ZvPs, two of them this season already. The only stomp in PvZ I remember from the past 10 years was JangBi 3-0 Soo in Jin Air Osl 2011. (Considering premier tournaments only). Rain has stomped so many zergs in big offline tournaments | ||
|
LpTraxamillion
265 Posts
What you are failing to see is that these results are due to the players more than anything. Zerg has the most S+ tier players of any race. Terran has Flash followed by Light and had Last. Protoss really only had Rain (who absolutely crushed everyone before he fell off the map), all the other toss are below the level of winning premier tournaments except maybe Snow. Bisu will probably get back to that level if he isn't there already. Zerg has Zero, Soulkey, and had Effort - all better at starcraft than any non-rain protoss in the modern era (bisu not there yet and Snow is a tier below). They also have Larva, Soma, Hero, and Action. Also had JD. Zerg is the most represented among top tier players while Toss is the least. Makes sense that Zerg wins more. I promise you if Rain was still around Protoss would be doing MUCH better Zerg has the highest ceiling of any race, yes. But they are also the hardest to play at that level. No human can come close to playing a perfect Zerg game. This is why I believe Zerg does better as the game progresses but the game is still quite balanced | ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
On October 28 2020 10:57 AttackZerg wrote: Don't miss the round of 32, and round of 16, some of the best games of the year are in those two rounds. Flash as random was overshadowed early on by some great matches. Enjoy. Thanks! | ||
|
Greg_J
China4409 Posts
A little sad, Best at his Best is a lot of fun to watch. Let's enjoy the ZvZ's! | ||
|
AttackZerg
United States7454 Posts
I think that is key to the genius of the game. Out of love for the game and fairness, we have created very narrow ranges of maps that are used in competitive play. We have slowly added more and more features that are essential to fairness. We use standard mineral patches, and geyers, we never have maps with open mains. We don't play maps like dire straights or Polaris prime because zergs just die. We make tons of choices to make the game more fair, but fairness is not balance. I personally think it is unfair to never have pure air maps in competitive play. Protoss was given the most powerful air and then they only play on ground. The balance thing is a minefield. If you blame every victory or defeat on balance then you are giving no credit to the other player. If Z>P was imbalanced to the point of being broken, then we would have non-korean vs korean matches to prove this. At the top level, we may need to open up some of the 'givens' of every map. Just expanding the the minerals in a main base from 1500 to 2000 would change the window that protoss mines out their main from the 16:50-18:20 range to 20-24 minutes. Expanding the window to claim a third. I'm not recommending this, but I think the path to fairness is paved with this type of thinking. | ||
|
kaspa84
Brazil169 Posts
On October 28 2020 10:48 Magic Powers wrote: No, it's not faulty. The data so far indicates that BW is balanced, however that doesn't mean it's a perfect balance (perfect balance in BW - be it static through history or temporary - is impossible for a number of reasons). When I say "BW is balanced" that means a few things: 1) It's as balanced as it can be. 2) We don't have knowledge on how to make it more balanced (for that we'd have to know what a more balanced scenario actually looks like, and no one has that information for many reasons). 3) There's no proof that BW is in fact unbalanced to a degree that it requires a patch in order to be more fair at any given skill level. 4) BW is balanced insofar as we have allowed it to be balanced. What this means is the following: the idea of a perfectly balanced game of BW rests on a number of factors like the map design, the meta of the game at each skill level, the discovery of novel mechanics and strategies, the human (in)ability to further push the boundaries, and a bunch of statistical noise. In other words it's not just impossible to figure out how balanced or imbalanced BW really is, it's also impossible to further balance it without pulling at a number of strings unrelated to the core game design. However, we do have data on the overall balance of the game, and even though that balance has never been perfect throughout history, it has shifted in various directions throughout history (for many reasons). There's a reason why many BW players have (rightfully) always protested against any and all measures from Blizzard to interfere with the game design after the earliest patches - sometimes to the point of asking for actual bugs to not be fixed. I will try to argue point by point: 1. That's is an assumption you made. But it is clear that if ZvP is 55% expected win rate for Zerg, that's no as balanced as it can be. A small buff here to P race can lower that near 50%, for sure. 2. The fact that we don't have knowledge about how to balance doesn't mean it's impossible to balance it more, maybe we can discover that knowledge (if it actually exists a way) 3. Maybe there isn't the proof, but again, this doesn't mean it a better balance can't be done. 4. Yes, there are many confounding factors in this issue, I agree here. The fact that pro players only play their main races so the collective level of each races players influence the win rates in each match-up is a big one, for instance. But again this doesn't mean that these matchups aren't imbalanced. I get that there are problems with balance patches (unintended consequences, desire for even more balance patches etc) and BW surely is not grossly imbalanced. I am not even arguing in favor of balance patches. Yes, the win rates shifted through history, but the majority of time Z was favored, indicating a imbalance in their favor. But the main point is that 55-45 IS imbalanced, and in a Bo5 this turns at about 60-40, which is even more clearly unbalanced. To say that ZvP is balanced but may be 55-45 on Bo1 (60-40 on Bo5) is simply contradictory. It's either one thing or the other. If a P player had to win three Bo5s in PvZ to win a SL he would have a 6,4% chance, instead of 12,5% if the matchup were 50-50. A Z needing to win the same 3 Bo5s against Ps would have 21,6%. Is that balanced? As a side note, chess also has a 55-45 win rate for white/black pieces, and all great players through history (but Adorjan) recognize that white has an advantage in chess. | ||
|
kaspa84
Brazil169 Posts
On October 28 2020 11:51 LpTraxamillion wrote: Outside of this tournament protoss has been doing very well vs Z. Hardly any hydra busts anymore too. What you are failing to see is that these results are due to the players more than anything. Zerg has the most S+ tier players of any race. Terran has Flash followed by Light and had Last. Protoss really only had Rain (who absolutely crushed everyone before he fell off the map), all the other toss are below the level of winning premier tournaments except maybe Snow. Bisu will probably get back to that level if he isn't there already. Zerg has Zero, Soulkey, and had Effort - all better at starcraft than any non-rain protoss in the modern era (bisu not there yet and Snow is a tier below). They also have Larva, Soma, Hero, and Action. Also had JD. Zerg is the most represented among top tier players while Toss is the least. Makes sense that Zerg wins more. I promise you if Rain was still around Protoss would be doing MUCH better Zerg has the highest ceiling of any race, yes. But they are also the hardest to play at that level. No human can come close to playing a perfect Zerg game. This is why I believe Zerg does better as the game progresses but the game is still quite balanced Rain lost to a twilighting Jaedong (still a monster of course) 4-0 in KSL semifinals, so definitely not crushing everyone. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4112 Posts
On October 28 2020 15:02 kaspa84 wrote: I will try to argue point by point: 1. That's is an assumption you made. But it is clear that if ZvP is 55% expected win rate for Zerg, that's no as balanced as it can be. A small buff here to P race can lower that near 50%, for sure. 2. The fact that we don't have knowledge about how to balance doesn't mean it's impossible to balance it more, maybe we can discover that knowledge (if it actually exists a way) 3. Maybe there isn't the proof, but again, this doesn't mean it a better balance can't be done. 4. Yes, there are many confounding factors in this issue, I agree here. The fact that pro players only play their main races so the collective level of each races players influence the win rates in each match-up is a big one, for instance. But again this doesn't mean that these matchups aren't imbalanced. I get that there are problems with balance patches (unintended consequences, desire for even more balance patches etc) and BW surely is not grossly imbalanced. I am not even arguing in favor of balance patches. Yes, the win rates shifted through history, but the majority of time Z was favored, indicating a imbalance in their favor. But the main point is that 55-45 IS imbalanced, and in a Bo5 this turns at about 60-40, which is even more clearly unbalanced. To say that ZvP is balanced but may be 55-45 on Bo1 (60-40 on Bo5) is simply contradictory. It's either one thing or the other. If a P player had to win three Bo5s in PvZ to win a SL he would have a 6,4% chance, instead of 12,5% if the matchup were 50-50. A Z needing to win the same 3 Bo5s against Ps would have 21,6%. Is that balanced? As a side note, chess also has a 55-45 win rate for white/black pieces, and all great players through history (but Adorjan) recognize that white has an advantage in chess. 1) You can't know if BW could be more balanced than it is right now, and that is for a number of reasons. One is the map design, which is meant to create balance where otherwise there is none. This is why island maps have been virtually abandoned and most semi-island maps also get rejected. Since only certain maps allow for anything close to perfect balance, it is therefore impossible to balance the game itself, as it would shift the balance on some maps in one direction and on other maps in another direction. Another reason is the meta game, which makes it impossible for us to know whether the match results are indicative of balance or not. And there are a few more reasons that I've mentioned in my previous post. 2) As explained in 1) we can't discover that knowledge. The meta of the game and a number of other factors change over time, which makes it impossible for us to know how to balance the game more. We'd essentially always be chasing after our own tail. And that doesn't even go into the technological challenge of running a sufficient number of useful simulations (which can't account for real life skills), which makes it an absolute impossibility. 3) The chance of messing up the game is greater than improving it. The history of BW shows that it's better to leave it than to alter it, as there have been revolutions even almost twenty years after the initiation of the e-sports scene (think zerg queens radically altering the terran strategy against zerg, forcing terrans to implement more timing attacks and SKTerran builds to win the game outright or gain a greater edge before the almost inevitable mech transition - and that queen transition came as a neccessary counter to terrans discovering the power of a mech transition in the first place. Both of these revolutions had a massive impact on the winrate of both races). The fact that zerg was usually favored over protoss doesn't mean anything. Terran for example is currently doing quite well - but that's mainly because of Flash and Fantasy. Flash revolutionized both matchup a number of times, and Fantasy revolutionized TvZ, both years after genius players like Boxer, Nada and iloveoov had discovered a number of great tactics and strategies first. Bisu revolutionized PvZ in a way that no one thought possible. Protoss players had all but resigned to their fate of inferiority until he showed up and proved everybody wrong. This was more than eight years after the initiation of the e-sports scene. It was literally like a great reset that sent shockwaves through the BW scene. He not only dethroned Savior (with ease), but he brought the whole protoss race back into the spotlight. Rain is another protoss who was basically carrying the race all by himself. If protoss players would study his strategies (which they can, his vods are up on Afreeca) they could learn them and improve them and become the best players in the world. The comparison to chess doesn't work, as chess has been largely figured out. BW is many times more strategically complex, and it is also very mechanically demanding. BW - unlike chess - is practically unsolvable. In chess they have implemented ways to balance out the inherent disadvantage of the black pieces with ideas like increasing the time on the clock. | ||
|
kaspa84
Brazil169 Posts
On October 28 2020 15:35 Magic Powers wrote: 1) You can't know if BW could be more balanced than it is right now, and that is for a number of reasons. One is the map design, which is meant to create balance where otherwise there is none. This is why island maps have been virtually abandoned and most semi-island maps also get rejected. Since only certain maps allow for anything close to perfect balance, it is therefore impossible to balance the game itself, as it would shift the balance on some maps in one direction and on other maps in another direction. Another reason is the meta game, which makes it impossible for us to know whether the match results are indicative of balance or not. And there are a few more reasons that I've mentioned in my previous post. 2) As explained in 1) we can't discover that knowledge. The meta of the game and a number of other factors change over time, which makes it impossible for us to know how to balance the game more. We'd essentially always be chasing after our own tail. And that doesn't even go into the technological challenge of running a sufficient number of useful simulations (which can't account for real life skills), which makes it an absolute impossibility. 3) The chance of messing up the game is greater than improving it. The history of BW shows that it's better to leave it than to alter it, as there have been revolutions even almost twenty years after the initiation of the e-sports scene (think zerg queens radically altering the terran strategy against zerg, forcing terrans to implement more timing attacks and SKTerran builds to win the game outright or gain a greater edge before the almost inevitable mech transition - and that queen transition came as a neccessary counter to terrans discovering the power of a mech transition in the first place. Both of these revolutions had a massive impact on the winrate of both races). The fact that zerg was usually favored over protoss doesn't mean anything. Terran for example is currently doing quite well - but that's mainly because of Flash and Fantasy. Flash revolutionized both matchup a number of times, and Fantasy revolutionized TvZ, both years after genius players like Boxer, Nada and iloveoov had discovered a number of great tactics and strategies first. Bisu revolutionized PvZ in a way that no one thought possible. Protoss players had all but resigned to their fate of inferiority until he showed up and proved everybody wrong. This was more than eight years after the initiation of the e-sports scene. It was literally like a great reset that sent shockwaves through the BW scene. He not only dethroned Savior (with ease), but he brought the whole protoss race back into the spotlight. Rain is another protoss who was basically carrying the race all by himself. If protoss players would study his strategies (which they can, his vods are up on Afreeca) they could learn them and improve them and become the best players in the world. The comparison to chess doesn't work, as chess has been largely figured out. BW is many times more strategically complex, and it is also very mechanically demanding. BW - unlike chess - is practically unsolvable. In chess they have implemented ways to balance out the inherent disadvantage of the black pieces with ideas like increasing the time on the clock. Are you purposefully misunderstanding what I argue? | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4112 Posts
| ||
|
Barneyk
Sweden305 Posts
Similar that P>T in that matchup because P is in control. There is a difference though as in PvT, the Terrans late game army is in control, 3-2 tanks just shred the protoss army. While in PvZ, late game zerg with defilers, plauge and cracklings just is so hard to play against. So in either matchup, Protoss want to avoid the late game, or go into it with a significant advantage. I saw some people saying that protoss has an advantage vs zerg late game with reavers and archons, and I was baffled. What PvZ late games have you been watching over the past 10 years? Of course Protoss can win late game, it isn't impossible. But it is pretty clear that Zerg has the advantage. Just as like in PvT if protoss gets up to, say, 8 carriers they have an advantage over terran on most maps. But the game doesn't need balance, you could have maps where zerg basically never wins against protoss. Right now, it seems to be a pretty clear combination of Protoss playing poorly and the maps slightly favoring zerg makes it seem completely imba. But it isn't it. Snow and Best both did some really poor plays and it cost them. Like, how both of them had Plasma as their #1 pick and just got crushed on it, what where they planning to do? Why did they want that map? Both lost super easy to a lurker rush. Best played subpar and queen played very very well, not something to whine about balance over. | ||
|
oxKnu
1181 Posts
On October 28 2020 11:51 LpTraxamillion wrote: Outside of this tournament protoss has been doing very well vs Z. Hardly any hydra busts anymore too. What you are failing to see is that these results are due to the players more than anything. Zerg has the most S+ tier players of any race. Terran has Flash followed by Light and had Last. Protoss really only had Rain (who absolutely crushed everyone before he fell off the map), all the other toss are below the level of winning premier tournaments except maybe Snow. Bisu will probably get back to that level if he isn't there already. Zerg has Zero, Soulkey, and had Effort - all better at starcraft than any non-rain protoss in the modern era (bisu not there yet and Snow is a tier below). They also have Larva, Soma, Hero, and Action. Also had JD. Zerg is the most represented among top tier players while Toss is the least. Makes sense that Zerg wins more. I promise you if Rain was still around Protoss would be doing MUCH better Zerg has the highest ceiling of any race, yes. But they are also the hardest to play at that level. No human can come close to playing a perfect Zerg game. This is why I believe Zerg does better as the game progresses but the game is still quite balanced Mmm, well have you considered the that is the reason he have so many great Zergs in the first place? A racial imbalance in one of the three match-ups? Reputation is gained through results and when you are aided favorably 33% of the time of course you will have an edge over the competition and your name is more prestigious in the long run. I would ask anyone that wants to argue this point to provide any data that disproves a PvZ imbalance without resorting to adjacent facts like 'MAPS!?!' or anecdotal evidence of 1 player having a good tournament 2 years ago or the nostalgia of a meta shift 14 years ago that is mostly irrelevant anymore. | ||
|
Avi-Love
Denmark423 Posts
First of all ZvP is slightly zerg favored on average, which tends to be equal to the amount that TvZ is terran favoured. For a very long time, PvT was also slightly protoss favoured -- if you add all three of those up, you would generally end up with a perfectly balanced game, except not all matches are 50/50, rather they would be 55/45(zvp) 45/55(zvt) and 50/50 (zvz). A trend lately is that terran actually wins both tvp and tvz, but to me it is not at an alarming rate. The only serious balance complaint in the game is purely based on maps, and ASL has a history of wanting at least 1 "wildcard" map in their tournament (be it Sparkle, Third World, Plasma or whatever). Balance on these maps can be quite wonky, but it adds to the excitement of the tournament while rewarding special map preparation. That said, this ASL has three "catastrophic" maps as far as balance is concerned, and they are: Plasma, which some guy in this thread hilariously called imbalanced FOR zerg, when it is quite clearly the best protoss map since Third World. Protoss wins both pvt and pvz, and Zerg loses both of their matchups horribly. Benzene, a map that since its reemergence has been quite zerg favoured, especially in zvp. Optimizer, a map that has a 66.6% win rate in TvZ over a large sample, which is completely unacceptable. So can we blame the map pool for Best losing to zero? Absolutely not, as favoured as Benzene is, Plasma is equally as broken the other way, and Poly is around the 53/47 mark, which is incredibly close to being perfect. It is unfortunate that Best didn't get to pick map 1/3, but instead had to go 2/4, because it means that the series never got to Ringing Bloom (which is slightly protoss favoured). However, if you can't win on any of the first 3 maps, you don't even deserve to get to play your 2nd map. The truth is that Best played incredibly poorly, he made huge mistakes in all three games, and any zerg at the pro level would have been good enough to take advantage of it. I could go over all three games and try to explain what happened and why, but I'm honestly not going to waste my time; instead I would strongly encourage any future poster to not just make up shit that fits their narrative, and instead check the resources available (like sponbbang) to easily access factual data on map and mu balance from the very top players in Starcraft. | ||
|
oxKnu
1181 Posts
I know that Artosis and Tasteless like to make up storylines in each ASL but this one is absolutely ridiculous and backed by 0 facts. Snow has always been a really weak PvZ player (far weaker than Best for example) that has managed to become somewhat competitive in the last couple of years. There are many examples of him not being able to overcome the matchup in many of the tournaments in the Remastered era. Best actually had the second ELO rating coming into this ASL (second to Flash) so if there is anyone that "should" have made a splash it would've been him. However, I think the BW community by and large knew that both Ps had maybe a 30% chance of getting the Bo5 win. Odds offered by betting sites also reflected this. The overall outcome of the both series was definitely worst-case scenario but the results are nowhere near surprising. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4112 Posts
On October 28 2020 18:16 oxKnu wrote: Mmm, well have you considered the that is the reason he have so many great Zergs in the first place? A racial imbalance in one of the three match-ups? Reputation is gained through results and when you are aided favorably 33% of the time of course you will have an edge over the competition and your name is more prestigious in the long run. I would ask anyone that wants to argue this point to provide any data that disproves a PvZ imbalance without resorting to adjacent facts like 'MAPS!?!' or anecdotal evidence of 1 player having a good tournament 2 years ago or the nostalgia of a meta shift 14 years ago that is mostly irrelevant anymore. Rain quitting BW seems like a very big deal to me considering the pro scene is tiny right now compared to 10 years ago. If he was still around, would people complain about any PvX imbalances at all? Also consider Bisu is probably not yet at his peak performance either. Zerg of course have lost JD as well. But then again, protoss don't have JangBi. Do you see the problem? Just one progamer representing a race can make all the difference in balance talks. | ||
| ||
