|
Avi-love stop wasting your time responding to this Light-"dude" in this topic. He is completely out of his element and doesnt seem to realize it.
We do NOT need any more and any longer texts of endless bullshit from anyone regarding balance issues. We can break it down to a couple of short little notes
1) Balance depends on maps
2) Ideally you need a big sample size on a certain set of maps with players of a certain skill level (TOP Players but not looking at only the literal best e.g. Flash because that skews things too much, because regardless of race he simply seems to be exceptional and an outlier)
And there is NOTHING more to it. Also you have to realize that sth like 54/46 is hardly imbalance at all considering all the factors we do not know (and there are m.a.n.y)
It is painful to see people having such a strong opinion (Light-, oxknu) who apparently have very little experience in and knodlwedge of t he game..
|
Can I just point out that ZvZ is horribly imbalanced because hyvaa has a positive winning record against Jaedong in Kespa games? He's 30-44 (40.54%) against other zerg players, but against Jaedong he's 5-2 (71.43%). What's up with that? Please patch.
+ Show Spoiler +On a serious note, the idea is that the sample size required for determining the true winrate of one matchup is somewhere in the hundreds of games per player with no confounding variables (like changes in the map pool, stage fright, opponents, and much more). This whole balance discussion started because of a handful of games. Let that sink in.
|
On October 31 2020 06:14 Essbee wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2020 05:36 oxKnu wrote:On October 31 2020 03:35 Essbee wrote:On October 31 2020 01:53 oxKnu wrote:On October 31 2020 00:09 Essbee wrote:On October 31 2020 00:04 oxKnu wrote:
I'd like to see evidence that shows that Light has managed to be better than many other Protosses for the brief period that he switched to Protoss.
As far as I remember, he was spectacularly poor. He beat flash in a straight up macro PvT. He gave a build to Bisu for PvT too. How is this in any way significant and/or validating of your claim? Are you basing this on ONE game? Flash on the other hand has proven that he can win consistently against the best Terrans in the world with Protoss, including LAN competitions. That's what I call a significant indicator. Ok, I'm not sure what your point is. If you don't want to include Light, that's fine. But yes beating flash with your offrace (even just one game) is damn impressive in itself. Light is not worth including in the conversation simply because he has no record to back that up. Yes, one game is eons away from being enough to justify that. On the other hand, Flash's record as P (although he is R these days which is a disadvantage for his opponents) has been that of a Top10 player, some would say even Top5 although I'm not willing to go into that direction myself. Seasons ago, before Flash even announced that he might go R in ASL he was having accounts very close to the top of the ladder with him exclusively playing Protoss, against the other top pros. Protoss, not Random. 2700 MMR. At the same time, Light decided to change to playing to P for a season of KSL and got absolutely bopped in the qualifiers. Their off-race P is not close. Ok, fair enough. It doesn't change my original point but I can agree with this. I still think Light's protoss is better now than it was, but I can't really prove this. I'd like to see some stats for it.
Depends on what better means? Is it good? Probably. But in general we're talking of a different level altogether.
Terran players also have this go-to statement of saying that they could reach pro-level skill by switching to Protoss in no-time, although there's only one that has really proven it (even if in spurts) and you all know his name.
|
On October 31 2020 04:09 kaspa84 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2020 00:14 RKC wrote:On October 31 2020 00:09 Essbee wrote:On October 30 2020 23:40 Light- wrote:On October 30 2020 23:02 Essbee wrote:
The problem with stats is that they completely ignore the quality of players. Flash and Light have already proven to be better with protoss than most protoss mains. So you would have to remove them from the terran stats. I don't think using stats in a game like starcraft will create the most meaningful result. The difference in the balance of the maps and quality of players is just way too vast. Agreed. If we want to try to evaluate balance statistically we need to control for as many variables as possible, and so it's imperative to control for player quality by only looking at the data from the matches between the best players. Likewise, I believe map balance can be controlled by taking games from a significant number (close to 30 or more) of maps to remove the effect of map imbalance. Random sampling is important because the effects of any one or two forces is drowned by the noise of all the different things. If a pattern still emerges even after taking a statistically significant random sample, then by reason it is clear there is a fundamental effect going on. The hard truth for some to accept is that, throughout BW's history, ZvP has always shown the largest gap in the numbers. But as I said before, the jury is still out, the gap is not egregious, and it is very well likely due to the gaps in player skill. The ASL could decide to make more maps like Third World (a recent map) to really push for a protoss winner if they really wanted to but then it just feels unfair to better players like Flash who get punished for simply being better (which is what happened in ASL5). Maps have such a big effect on balance that changing the races themselves will do nothing since you can just adjust the maps to make these changes have no real impact in the end. The maps, by themselves, can completely control the balance. My post is a bit beside your point, but I just felt like pointing that out  I'm not too familiar with BW history. Has there been any recent Starleague season pre or post Kespa where the map pool was greatly imbalanced against Z in ZvP? What were those maps like? Yeah, that season was really harsh on Flash. People argue that he lost the balanced maps against Snow and won the Protoss-favoured maps. But that's overlooking the fact that a Terran is obviously put under greater stress and disadvantage preparing for an imbalanced map pool. And maybe that's what almost always happen to Ps when they have to prepare for multiple imbalanced maps in PvZ? They get put under stress and disadvantage?
Yes, exactly. That's why I feel looking at quantitative stats alone don't reveal the full extent of imbalance. Race X may have a perfect 50/50 odds against all 10 BOs that Race Y can throw at X. But if Race X only has 5 viable BOs against Y (50/50 odds), then there's still an imbalance - in terms of choice, and strategy. Race X has to prepare twice harder than Race Y, and be extra alert during every match to scout Y's BO setup (and derivative transitions). Imbalance is not just quantitative, but also qualitative.
The fact that Protoss has the weakest scouting ability of all races already puts them at a disadvantage against Z (or even T). There's a term for it: 'information asymmetry'. Of course, there are perhaps many other areas where Protoss excel over the other races. But scouting really matters in the early game, where insufficient scouting can easily lead to an auto-loss.
|
On October 31 2020 08:57 Magic Powers wrote:
On a serious note, the idea is that the sample size required for determining the true winrate of one matchup is somewhere in the hundreds of games per player with no confounding variables (like changes in the map pool, stage fright, opponents, and much more). This whole balance discussion started because of a handful of games. Let that sink in.
You sound like you know statistics. How would you design a case study for this?
|
Imagine if the semi's to the grand finals are all zvz's even with flash in the finals only rolling z's lol
|
On October 31 2020 10:50 Light- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2020 08:57 Magic Powers wrote:
On a serious note, the idea is that the sample size required for determining the true winrate of one matchup is somewhere in the hundreds of games per player with no confounding variables (like changes in the map pool, stage fright, opponents, and much more). This whole balance discussion started because of a handful of games. Let that sink in. You sound like you know statistics. How would you design a case study for this?
I'm decent with statistics, but my knowledge stems mainly from just one book and conversations with people more knowledgeable than me. I have no higher education. Realistically speaking idk if people would even be up for the amount of rigor required, since just about anything and everything can be considered a confounding variable. And then where's the funding gonna come from? Creating a lab-like setting for this seems unfeasible.
But I think any ladder-like setting can serve as a pretty decent impression of the overall state of the game. Unfortunately no true values can be guaranteed to come out of it, mainly due to biases like for example map/race/matchup preferences, meta changes or even cultural and environmental factors, and a number of other things that can skew the results in various ways.
I think we just have to live with this uncertainty about the true state of the game. But that's part of the beauty. I enjoy the exploration part of playing a game, and I believe after all these years there are still many big dark/gray areas in BW.
|
On October 31 2020 09:44 RKC wrote:
The fact that Protoss has the weakest scouting ability of all races already puts them at a disadvantage against Z (or even T). There's a term for it: 'information asymmetry'. Of course, there are perhaps many other areas where Protoss excel over the other races. But scouting really matters in the early game, where insufficient scouting can easily lead to an auto-loss.
Well, I'm most probably going to be flamed by some people for what I'm about to say since I'm going to say something controversial, since it's the reason why this thread has grown beyond even the size of Flash's Ro8 thread. And I hope my reasoning isn't sketchy or fallacious, and if it's been talked about before then sorry for bringing up something old and refuted, but I haven't heard it discussed.
I'm glad you mentioned the information asymmetry, because it reminded me of another thing about Protoss - that it is quite clearly the strongest on island maps. And that's why we don't really play on island maps and we have "standard" maps. But if the game was actually "balanced" (for something asymmetrical), then shouldn't all the matchups be around 50% on all kinds of maps, after controlling for all variables?
But I think it doesn't make sense to say the game is balanced when we play on "standard" maps and ignore other types of maps. I think it's more accurate to say that the game is balanced only if played on certain kinds of maps. But if we cannot play on all kinds of maps because it helps control the balance of the races, doesn't that imply the races are not balanced?
Still not saying we should change the game though, what we've got going is fine.
|
All three races are part of the game, maps are part of the game. Maps contribute to the balance.
A game with three similar races is not something one can find from broodwar, and that is the beauty of this game.
|
I don't know what to think. The four favourites progressed and now we need a balance patch 
|
On October 31 2020 12:33 Light- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2020 09:44 RKC wrote:
The fact that Protoss has the weakest scouting ability of all races already puts them at a disadvantage against Z (or even T). There's a term for it: 'information asymmetry'. Of course, there are perhaps many other areas where Protoss excel over the other races. But scouting really matters in the early game, where insufficient scouting can easily lead to an auto-loss. Well, I'm most probably going to be flamed by some people for what I'm about to say since I'm going to say something controversial, since it's the reason why this thread has grown beyond even the size of Flash's Ro8 thread. And I hope my reasoning isn't sketchy or fallacious, and if it's been talked about before then sorry for bringing up something old and refuted, but I haven't heard it discussed. I'm glad you mentioned the information asymmetry, because it reminded me of another thing about Protoss - that it is quite clearly the strongest on island maps. And that's why we don't really play on island maps and we have "standard" maps. But if the game was actually "balanced" (for something asymmetrical), then shouldn't all the matchups be around 50% on all kinds of maps, after controlling for all variables? But I think it doesn't make sense to say the game is balanced when we play on "standard" maps and ignore other types of maps. I think it's more accurate to say that the game is balanced only if played on certain kinds of maps. But if we cannot play on all kinds of maps because it helps control the balance of the races, doesn't that imply the races are not balanced? Still not saying we should change the game though, what we've got going is fine.
you are not going to get flamed but once again...
isnt it simply logical to anyone with at least a bit of SC BW knowledge that OBVIOUSLY maps have a huge influence on balance?
How do you even imagine this to just not be the case. It is LITERALLY impossible. You could never achieve it.
Like Im almost at this point in too much pain to waste any more time on this but your question regarding this "mus are balanced if they are 50% on all maps"
it is impossible to achieve.. easiest example:
Imagine a map with extremely messed up terrain, a lot of bridges, a lot of hills, many trees.. like the map is FULL OF IT
and then imagine additionally every aspect that favors a Terran over a Protoss on this map.
This map is 80/20 Terran favored and the balance changes youd need to make in order to get it to 50/50 would probably mean that Protoss would be so overpowered on any "normal" map.
I mean the thing ur asking for is so trivially NOT POSSIBLE that I almost fail ways to describe it to you.
Meh this topic is literally making me lose brain cells so Im gonna stop now.. But be honest: You really do not have much SCBW knowledge or a SC BW gaming background, do you?
Id be stunned.
|
On November 01 2020 01:36 MaGic~PhiL wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2020 12:33 Light- wrote:On October 31 2020 09:44 RKC wrote:
The fact that Protoss has the weakest scouting ability of all races already puts them at a disadvantage against Z (or even T). There's a term for it: 'information asymmetry'. Of course, there are perhaps many other areas where Protoss excel over the other races. But scouting really matters in the early game, where insufficient scouting can easily lead to an auto-loss. Well, I'm most probably going to be flamed by some people for what I'm about to say since I'm going to say something controversial, since it's the reason why this thread has grown beyond even the size of Flash's Ro8 thread. And I hope my reasoning isn't sketchy or fallacious, and if it's been talked about before then sorry for bringing up something old and refuted, but I haven't heard it discussed. I'm glad you mentioned the information asymmetry, because it reminded me of another thing about Protoss - that it is quite clearly the strongest on island maps. And that's why we don't really play on island maps and we have "standard" maps. But if the game was actually "balanced" (for something asymmetrical), then shouldn't all the matchups be around 50% on all kinds of maps, after controlling for all variables? But I think it doesn't make sense to say the game is balanced when we play on "standard" maps and ignore other types of maps. I think it's more accurate to say that the game is balanced only if played on certain kinds of maps. But if we cannot play on all kinds of maps because it helps control the balance of the races, doesn't that imply the races are not balanced? Still not saying we should change the game though, what we've got going is fine. you are not going to get flamed but once again... isnt it simply logical to anyone with at least a bit of SC BW knowledge that OBVIOUSLY maps have a huge influence on balance? How do you even imagine this to just not be the case. It is LITERALLY impossible. You could never achieve it. Like Im almost at this point in too much pain to waste any more time on this but your question regarding this "mus are balanced if they are 50% on all maps" it is impossible to achieve.. easiest example: Imagine a map with extremely messed up terrain, a lot of bridges, a lot of hills, many trees.. like the map is FULL OF IT and then imagine additionally every aspect that favors a Terran over a Protoss on this map. This map is 80/20 Terran favored and the balance changes youd need to make in order to get it to 50/50 would probably mean that Protoss would be so overpowered on any "normal" map. I mean the thing ur asking for is so trivially NOT POSSIBLE that I almost fail ways to describe it to you. Meh this topic is literally making me lose brain cells so Im gonna stop now.. But be honest: You really do not have much SCBW knowledge or a SC BW gaming background, do you? Id be stunned.
Well I don't know what qualifies as much SCBW knowledge or gaming background. I've been playing this game since I was a teen, back in the PGTour days, and I've been following the scene since around 2006? The earliest significant memories I have were watching he-who-shall-not-be-named in his prime slaying Terran giants and then falling in the glorious Revolution. But anyway I feel that this is like an appeal to authority and I don't think it is a point that belongs in a discussion. I think in any discussion what really matters are the premises and evidences that are presented. You don't see people in other fields saying things like "Well I've been doing this longer than you/have accomplished this or that" as a way to prove their points right. It's not about asserting yourself, I'm just trying to talk and understand this game better myself, and I did feel like what I said was a little outlandish, but I wasn't seeing a way out of it in my mind so I thought I should share. Anyway I appreciate that you took the time to give a patient response.
I wasn't saying that the game will be perfectly balanced, sorry if that wasn't clear. It's asymmetrical, how could it be? And I think I understand that maps are a factor that work to output that end result we call balance. But I guess I wasn't clear in my post that my main contention was that, I don't get why it seems that people say maps are balanced/imbalanced. Like they innately possess a balance. To me, maps are just maps. Like works of art, they have the right to be anything they want. It's not fair to say maps have to have such-and-such features and layouts so that they are "good." Land map, island map, 10 mineral patches, 8, no nat gas, I think these are all valid because maps can be whatever they want to be. And I think it's up to the races to be well designed enough so that they are not overpowered when maps are a certain way.
Sorry if I didn't get the point of your post, maybe I just see things in a way that is completely different than you and will never understand, maybe I'm lost and deluded, but regardless I'm trying to find my way to understanding.
|
I mean considering that it it super easy to create countless of (good) maps and super tough to design/change unit hp/building time/energy ECT.. I again completely fail to understand ur reasoning.
I honestly was about to start writing a longer response again but I will honestly stop right now. Let that sink in:
You literally think it is easier/more useful/better to have ANY map be good/viable/okay (for competetive play) VIA instead tinkering with the races or even more absurdly just wanting them to be in a way that they are balanced on every map. Again.
This will truly be my last point on this whole issue but I can simply not help myself to feel that you are totally lost and are jumping from one statement to the other.
Actually upon rereading it.. it is just completely absurd what u are proposing/thinking.
I could write examples and many many lines now but it is not worth it because ur claim/logic about maps "vs" units/races" is so unreal outlandish that I wont bother.
..please reread what you said; think about it; reflect on it; be honest to yourself;
there is nothing more I can and will do from now one
Looking forward to tomorrows Flahs vs Soma Semis - that is all
|
Norway28669 Posts
maybe we should create a global system where first we make a database out of every game played on every map and then we see what the win rates are for every map and then we program a handicap-system where units end up being adjusted an equal % down compared to how much above 50% their win rate is. And then this is constantly adjusted until an equilibrium is found. So if zerg wins 55% of the time in zvp, whoops now your hydras only have 76 hitpoints instead of 80, cuz they get a 5% decrease. If zerg ends up only winning 45% then, they can get them back. If terran is winning tvz 60% of the time, then their marines will only have 36 hp. etc. It will be perfectly balanced every time cuz whenever a race drops in win rate, the opponent's units are nerfed.
plz upvote
|
On November 01 2020 05:15 MaGic~PhiL wrote:I mean considering that it it super easy to create countless of (good) maps and super tough to design/change unit hp/building time/energy ECT.. I again completely fail to understand ur reasoning. I honestly was about to start writing a longer response again but I will honestly stop right now. Let that sink in: You literally think it is easier/more useful/better to have ANY map be good/viable/okay (for competetive play) VIA instead tinkering with the races or even more absurdly just wanting them to be in a way that they are balanced on every map. Again. This will truly be my last point on this whole issue but I can simply not help myself to feel that you are totally lost and are jumping from one statement to the other. Actually upon rereading it.. it is just completely absurd what u are proposing/thinking. I could write examples and many many lines now but it is not worth it because ur claim/logic about maps "vs" units/races" is so unreal outlandish that I wont bother. ..please reread what you said; think about it; reflect on it; be honest to yourself; there is nothing more I can and will do from now one Looking forward to tomorrows Flahs vs Soma Semis - that is all
I don't understand why people read into others' statements, claiming things that weren't there. I never said it would be easier, so I'd appreciate if you didn't say things about me that I didn't say. And unfortunately the rude language. God forbid people should speak like that to you whenever you try to talk about anything. Man would not do nearly as well if people didn't take the time to be patient and generous in sharing knowledge. You would not know nearly as much as you do in life otherwise.
If what I say bothers you, you don't have to waste your time with me. Fortunately my words do not have the power to bend reality just from being there. People have to accept them and act on them. People can think for themselves. If I'm wrong, everyone can just ignore me. If I'm a spreader of falsehood, you can make your case, and then the people can listen and judge. So please relax a little.
Anyway I think you did get what I was saying. I believe an RTS can have asymmetrical factions that are viable on all reasonably designed maps. You think it's absurd, well I like to dream possibilities. I think it's a challenge that is possible, and I'd like to see the next RTS do it through some sheer genius in game design. I'd like to see people try.
That's my last post about this. Thanks everyone for participating. Looking forward to Flash vs. Soma.
|
I feel like random takes all the excitement for me (personally) out of a matchup, really don't like it being an option. I just want to see high level matchups, a BO7 of just TvZ so we can conclude what the current state of TvZ is in late 2020. But this gives us nothing. I posted the same comment on youtube as well but every matchup with random feels like a showmatch. It ruins an aspect of the game.
|
Balancing a game is not as easy as simply adjusting values, it's also about functionality. Imagine your weapon of choice is a long sword and your opponent's is a short sword. Outdoors you might have an advantage, but indoors you might have a disadvantage, whereas in the woods maybe it's equal since both of the spatial asymmetries co-exist. The way the two swords function creates different effectiveness depending on the environment.
Now imagine if you could adjust the length of both swords to try to make them equally effective against each other in all three environments. Can you actually do it without making the functionality of both swords equal (same length)? That depends on whether or not you can reach the threshold where the functionality of each sword increases/decreases so that there can be a change in effectiveness, but not so much that the opposing weapon becomes too weak or too strong - in all three environments. And in the case of BW, you have to do this for three completely different races.
As you can perhaps see, for the sake of matchup balance on all maps, the ideal scenario would be if both game design and map design went hand in hand. However, there's always a way to break matchup balance by designing maps in a certain way - even maps that look strategically enticing. People want to play island maps, but those are fundamentally broken (this is also true in SC2 even though Blizzard frequently tinkers with the game design).
We can also always design strategically interesting looking land maps that are imbalanced, no matter how many balance patches come out.
So it becomes a philosophical question: what maps do we want to play on? In the case of BW, it makes sense that land maps are favored, because they create more action-packed games (as land units are first in the tech tree and cheaper than air units, another game design decision Blizzard made). And within that pool of land maps, some will be more balanced than others. Balance patches won't change that, they'll just make it easier to balance certain types of maps and others harder.
Map makers have figured out ways to always make meaningfully different maps without ruining the balance. So it's just a question of who gets to do the tinkering - map makers or Blizzard. And from experience I can say that I don't trust Blizzard with this, but I do trust the map makers. They won't always get it right of course, but who does?
|
On November 01 2020 06:02 Light- wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2020 05:15 MaGic~PhiL wrote:I mean considering that it it super easy to create countless of (good) maps and super tough to design/change unit hp/building time/energy ECT.. I again completely fail to understand ur reasoning. I honestly was about to start writing a longer response again but I will honestly stop right now. Let that sink in: You literally think it is easier/more useful/better to have ANY map be good/viable/okay (for competetive play) VIA instead tinkering with the races or even more absurdly just wanting them to be in a way that they are balanced on every map. Again. This will truly be my last point on this whole issue but I can simply not help myself to feel that you are totally lost and are jumping from one statement to the other. Actually upon rereading it.. it is just completely absurd what u are proposing/thinking. I could write examples and many many lines now but it is not worth it because ur claim/logic about maps "vs" units/races" is so unreal outlandish that I wont bother. ..please reread what you said; think about it; reflect on it; be honest to yourself; there is nothing more I can and will do from now one Looking forward to tomorrows Flahs vs Soma Semis - that is all I don't understand why people read into others' statements, claiming things that weren't there. I never said it would be easier, so I'd appreciate if you didn't say things about me that I didn't say. And unfortunately the rude language. God forbid people should speak like that to you whenever you try to talk about anything. Man would not do nearly as well if people didn't take the time to be patient and generous in sharing knowledge. You would not know nearly as much as you do in life otherwise. If what I say bothers you, you don't have to waste your time with me. Fortunately my words do not have the power to bend reality just from being there. People have to accept them and act on them. People can think for themselves. If I'm wrong, everyone can just ignore me. If I'm a spreader of falsehood, you can make your case, and then the people can listen and judge. So please relax a little. Anyway I think you did get what I was saying. I believe an RTS can have asymmetrical factions that are viable on all reasonably designed maps. You think it's absurd, well I like to dream possibilities. I think it's a challenge that is possible, and I'd like to see the next RTS do it through some sheer genius in game design. I'd like to see people try. That's my last post about this. Thanks everyone for participating. Looking forward to Flash vs. Soma.
Im sorry I dont want to sound rude but it is really tough to discuss with you. I mean do you realize ur doing it again? You are just jumping to another topic. Now it is a "perfect RTS" where maps dont influence balance because despite the races being different somehow any map still gives u a 50/50 match up.
It might be possible to do this at the cost of SO many other things. But we are not talking SCBW anymore if we are talking a "hypothetical" perfectly balanced RTS games (maps included).
Now I will reall try to not sound too arrogant, enraged again but we talked BroodWar balance specificialyl PvZ. We (hopefully everyone) came to the conclusion that maps play a huge role in terms of balance for almost any (non mirror) match up.
now again it is simply much easier to create good maps and only youse good maps in an competetive environment than to somehow magically patch the game in order to make every map balanced, because that quite frankly is basically i.m.p.o.s.s.i.b.l.e
Now please do not come at me with the "im dreaming/believing" narrative. That is just bollocks.
Im not hear to win a discussion. Im just upset and annoyed at this point. Sure anyone can write anything but there just comes a point where u have to reflect and accept if a take was dumb/unreasonable.
I am relaxed. It just is almost literally hurting my brain a bit. I mean it would hurt yours to if you would reflect on the post you made specifically about each map "being viable and balanced" at the cost of "fixing the races"
This is just literally undoable and even starting to think about how you could achieve it immidately sends painful shockwaves to ones brain.
So either you have not thought it through AT ALL or you have literally no brain. And I know ad hominems suck but the fact that you keep on jumping from one topic to the next and come up with crazy, completely unreasonable stuff every other post is just not acceptable for a serious discussion. So i urge you to either start discussing in a way that has merit or not do it at all; because having a differing opinion just for the sake of it and thus having to make up completely unreasonable ideas to support that stance is just incredibly annoying.
<3
|
|
|
Phil I appreciate what you said and I've dropped it, and I'm going to try a different line of inquiry. Hopefully it is more acceptable.
On November 01 2020 08:07 Magic Powers wrote:
Balancing a game is not as easy as simply adjusting values, it's also about functionality. Imagine your weapon of choice is a long sword and your opponent's is a short sword. Outdoors you might have an advantage, but indoors you might have a disadvantage, whereas in the woods maybe it's equal since both of the spatial asymmetries co-exist. The way the two swords function creates different effectiveness depending on the environment.
Now imagine if you could adjust the length of both swords to try to make them equally effective against each other in all three environments. Can you actually do it without making the functionality of both swords equal (same length)? That depends on whether or not you can reach the threshold where the functionality of each sword increases/decreases so that there can be a change in effectiveness, but not so much that the opposing weapon becomes too weak or too strong - in all three environments. And in the case of BW, you have to do this for three completely different races.
Ah I was hoping someone would talk game design. If I'm following your analogy correctly, the essence of the swordsman and his sword is what constitutes a unit? I agree with the way you put it, it just seems frankly impossible without making the swords the same. But then how about if the swordsmen and their swords were expanded and supplemented with other tools/weapons/abilities, innately or from fellow fighters, to compensate for their advantages/disadvantages. I feel like this is similar to fighting games, and I wonder if fighting game theory is applicable to RTS.
For example, if the short swordsman was given something that would only help him outdoors, while the long swordsman something that would only help indoors. I think when this is carefully done it could help achieve a reasonable level of parity regardless of the environment, which represents the map.
Edited to expand on a lazy post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
