|
On July 10 2012 22:12 BlaineMono wrote:If race X is more powerful than race Y than if you have two players of each race on the same skill level, the X race guy will have higher MMR but the same win rate as player X (because obviously he will be matched with tougher opponents).
This supposes that:
1- there is such a thing as "skill", one dimensional and valid across all leagues
2- there is a function F that gives a MMR value for a couple (skill, race),
3- that F is monotonic and rising with skill
4- that an ordering between races exists, so that if "race A" > "race B" then F(x,A)>F(x,B) for all x
I would agree with other posts that 4 is the easiest to prove wrong, although I also disagree with the other points.
It's only natural that if both X and Y have the same number of players and X players tend to be placed higher in MMR system that means that simply X is more powerful.
Except "More Powerful" is meaningless if your ordering is undefined. If you have 80% winrate PvZ, 80% winrate ZvT and 80% winrate TvP, you can get a perfect distribution by your standards. Some would still argue this is not balance.
So the only viable balance indicator for all levels is the normalized MMR race distribution.
An indicator: yes, but it has so far failed to provide any significant information. "the only viable", of course not.
|
On July 10 2012 22:50 BlaineMono wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 22:42 Zanno wrote:On July 10 2012 22:41 BlaineMono wrote:On July 10 2012 22:23 Plansix wrote:
Doesn’t everyone know that amateur (aka not pros, even if GM level) players as extremely poor judges of another players overall skill. Many players naturally devalue their opponents skill level and simply blame the game as a whole. You're 100% right. Now, please kindly quote from OP a single line where I wrote an amateurs opinion of balance. In fact, please quote any line that says ANYTHING about anyones opinion on balance. Did you read the OP? I posted theory behind MMR league system and you have just replayed with something that has 0 correlation with what I wrote. okay I have very little respect for people that tell that balance should be made for top play only. Please don't troll.. How is that an opinion on balance? If you can't see a difference between an opinion on balance and opinion on the way people think the game should be balanced then you have proved you shouldn't be posting in this thread. I'm interested in logical discussion.
I would argue that there is little, to no difference between an opinion on balance and an opinion on the way the game should be balanced. I understand that you feel there are points where the two things differ. However, even if that is true, those points are so minute that any argument is simply splitting hairs.
The game should always be balanced to the highest skill level, as it should reward the players that put in more time and care more about their play. Of course, with all practices, this should be done within reason. Obviously, if there were some race/unit/build that was dominating the lower leagues to an extreme and hurting the game as a whole, something should be done. This breaking point of this is up for debate, but everyone can agree that there are points when things need to be made “accessible” for beginners, within reason.
But people who want the game balanced for their skill level have a flawed argument. Their reasons are selfish and they do not want to put in the time and effort to overcome their weaknesses. Some people are of the opinion that they are doing well and should be advancing, but they have simply hit the point in their skill where the time to improvement ratio has decreased. This is when a lot of players go to the balance arguments and claim that their opponents are less skilled then they are. The game should not be balanced around these complaints.
MMR does not factor into balance as well. It is an abstraction that allows Blizzard to match players that they will have a reasonable chance of winning against. It does not show the overall balance of the matchups, or which race is more powerful. Even if we found that some players from a specific race where better at some aspect of the game, it would be more likely that the race rewards that specific skill more than others.
|
I generally dont post in these flamefests but here goes.. Balance at GM level is the only one that matters. Why? Because, that is the only group of people playing the game right or at the very least as right as possible they know more about what works and doesn't and are capable of actually seeing the game for what it is. When I was in bronze I thought void rays were imba as fuck, and now they are useless and I am only platinum. OP you need to chill out if people don't agree with you, that doesn't mean you are wrong it just means we don't agree stop getting so heated bro :D
|
On July 10 2012 23:14 TrippSC2 wrote:
It's always good to start a thread with a theme of "Hey idiots, look how smart I am!"
Maybe I did sound a bit arrogant for which I'm sorry, but look at this thread. You are the first person to even try to attempt a reasonable argument.
On July 10 2012 23:14 TrippSC2 wrote:
That being said, MMR distribution across all leagues would be a useful metric, if we accept your premise that all leagues should be balanced. I don't.
How can you say that? I mean there is a question whether it's possible, but if it is, you don't think it should be?
On July 10 2012 23:14 TrippSC2 wrote:
However, MMR distribution has some problems, as well. It says nothing about preference at each level of play (maybe people who play casually prefer X race and therefore there is a higher representation in bronze-silver league). It also has no real reference point for per-matchup balance, which is where real discussion can be had and where problems with balance will be solved. This is why matchup winrates with normalization for MMR are also a good metric. Neither can be the only metric used.
There is no reason to belive that there is a preference at each level of play other than balance one. The burden of proof that there exists such a trend is on the person claiming.
On July 10 2012 23:14 TrippSC2 wrote:
Finally, the most important level of play is the professional level, where there is actual money on the line.
On July 10 2012 23:14 TrippSC2 wrote:
Finally, the most important level of play is the professional level, where there is actual money on the line. When you add a new mechanic/unit/ability to the game (which I'm assuming is what you're getting at because it is an overly vague statement) you can't predict how the top-of-the-top players will use that ability. This means that this type of balance would completely disrupt the balance of pro play in a very undesirable way, while pros are forced to experiment with the new change without any common ground from the previous patch. Do you really want a pro play to be that unstable?
Professional level play is really messy atm. Besides each recent patch caused instability. That's not a valid argument. The thing i was suggesting wouldn't cause any more mess that the avarage patch brings.
I appreciate the post :-)
|
On July 10 2012 22:16 imMUTAble787 wrote:
balance around GM or tournament data only since those players are outliers concerning MMR
/thread
He pretty much gave the answer right there
|
On July 10 2012 23:18 Oshuy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 22:12 BlaineMono wrote:If race X is more powerful than race Y than if you have two players of each race on the same skill level, the X race guy will have higher MMR but the same win rate as player X (because obviously he will be matched with tougher opponents). This supposes that: 1- there is such a thing as "skill", one dimensional and valid across all leagues 2- there is a function F that gives a MMR value for a couple (skill, race), 3- that F is monotonic and rising with skill 4- that an ordering between races exists, so that if "race A" > "race B" then F(x,A)>F(x,B) for all x I would agree with other posts that 4 is the easiest to prove wrong, although I also disagree with the other points.
It's easiest to prove wrong, yet you conviniently left it out of your post. And to the first three points I would only add that F is a changing function for each player.
Show nested quote +It's only natural that if both X and Y have the same number of players and X players tend to be placed higher in MMR system that means that simply X is more powerful. Except "More Powerful" is meaningless if your ordering is undefined. If you have 80% winrate PvZ, 80% winrate ZvT and 80% winrate TvP, you can get a perfect distribution by your standards. Some would still argue this is not balance.
I don't really understand what you mean by perfect distribution. Care to elaborate? And the ordering is defined if you identifiy skill as some number (even if it's only a changing approximation for each player).
Show nested quote +So the only viable balance indicator for all levels is the normalized MMR race distribution. An indicator: yes, but it has so far failed to provide any significant information. "the only viable", of course not.
What I meant by only viable, is the only viable for us, not Blizzard. Which I stated in OP. If you think otherwise please post which other ones. I hope you don't mean opinions of players (not even top ones).
|
On July 10 2012 22:16 imMUTAble787 wrote:
balance around GM or tournament data only since those players are outliers concerning MMR
/thread
Why was the the thread not closed after this?
|
On July 10 2012 23:00 VanGooL wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 22:54 iamperfection wrote:On July 10 2012 22:51 BlaineMono wrote:On July 10 2012 22:50 Koshi wrote:On July 10 2012 22:12 BlaineMono wrote:
I have very little respect for people that tell that balance should be made for top play only. Usually the most math and science illiterate people post such things. This simply doesn't make sense and is destroying the game. A game balanced in a tought out way is balanced across all skill levels. And no, that's not impossible. It's impossible if you think balance can be achieved by messing only with unit stats. Arrogant. Ignorant. Please explain how am i ignorant. Thank you. Its so obvious its painful to try to explain it. Why would you balance around something as meaningless as the ladder? Pro tournaments are the only things that matter.
Because the game is about those who purchased it, not the exclusive minority that goes to tournaments.
Why was the the thread not closed after this?
Just because you agree, it doesn't mean it's right.
|
On July 11 2012 00:10 toiletCAT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 23:00 VanGooL wrote:On July 10 2012 22:54 iamperfection wrote:On July 10 2012 22:51 BlaineMono wrote:On July 10 2012 22:50 Koshi wrote:On July 10 2012 22:12 BlaineMono wrote:
I have very little respect for people that tell that balance should be made for top play only. Usually the most math and science illiterate people post such things. This simply doesn't make sense and is destroying the game. A game balanced in a tought out way is balanced across all skill levels. And no, that's not impossible. It's impossible if you think balance can be achieved by messing only with unit stats. Arrogant. Ignorant. Please explain how am i ignorant. Thank you. Its so obvious its painful to try to explain it. Why would you balance around something as meaningless as the ladder? Pro tournaments are the only things that matter. Because the game is about those who purchased it, not the exclusive minority that goes to tournaments. Just because you agree, it doesn't mean it's right.
It doesn't matter. Balancing for ladder is a lost cause because there is a substantial group of people that isn't skilled enough for minute balance changes to make a tonne of difference. People under Masters league can win just by sheer outmacro in any given scenario, because the people they're playing against are bad. What's more, people on ladder copy the strategies of pro players, which means that pro players need to be playing a balanced game, or there aren't going to be any pro players after a time. This means that the strategic morphing of the game stops, the spectating stops, and people lose interest in the game.
Blizzard shouldn't balance the game for Bronze just because a lot of people are in Bronze. Doing so would make the game unplayable for anyone else, and would kill the competitive scene.
|
On July 10 2012 23:40 Sylverin wrote:
I generally dont post in these flamefests but here goes.. Balance at GM level is the only one that matters. Why? Because, that is the only group of people playing the game right or at the very least as right as possible they know more about what works and doesn't and are capable of actually seeing the game for what it is. When I was in bronze I thought void rays were imba as fuck, and now they are useless and I am only platinum. OP you need to chill out if people don't agree with you, that doesn't mean you are wrong it just means we don't agree stop getting so heated bro :D
Hey, I don't mind people not agreeing with me when they explain the reasoning behind their argument. Just tired of those drones above writing a single line: 'Balance should be made based on GM and pro' and not even giving any argument why. You also make a flawed argument by saying the same about GM, and then you give an example of bronze player, like there is nothing in between those leagues. You think what people do in masters and diamond or w/e doesn't make any sense? Where do you draw the line? What does it mean someone's a GM? Being a GM means anything only in a context; a context that there are other people in other leagues, that the guy is better than.
|
LoL. Your post have a good timing.
I finished today my resarch about MMR - Race distribution with the userdata i have from my mmr tool
Way more accurate than leagues.
Will publish the data today...
|
Very thinly disguised balance whine.
If you think you're smarter than the balance team, you can apply for their job. Or you can do what others have attempted: create a mod with your own "balance". And then stare into space as nobody plays it.
|
On July 10 2012 23:55 BlaineMono wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 23:18 Oshuy wrote:On July 10 2012 22:12 BlaineMono wrote:If race X is more powerful than race Y than if you have two players of each race on the same skill level, the X race guy will have higher MMR but the same win rate as player X (because obviously he will be matched with tougher opponents). This supposes that: 1- there is such a thing as "skill", one dimensional and valid across all leagues 2- there is a function F that gives a MMR value for a couple (skill, race), 3- that F is monotonic and rising with skill 4- that an ordering between races exists, so that if "race A" > "race B" then F(x,A)>F(x,B) for all x I would agree with other posts that 4 is the easiest to prove wrong, although I also disagree with the other points. It's easiest to prove wrong, yet you conviniently left it out of your post. And to the first three points I would only add that F is a changing function for each player.
F is a changing function for each player ?? Do you realize that this makes no sense at all ?
No need to be so arrogant in your OP and replies when you clearly don't fully understand the problem yourself...
|
On July 11 2012 00:14 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 00:10 toiletCAT wrote:On July 10 2012 23:00 VanGooL wrote:On July 10 2012 22:54 iamperfection wrote:On July 10 2012 22:51 BlaineMono wrote:On July 10 2012 22:50 Koshi wrote:On July 10 2012 22:12 BlaineMono wrote:
I have very little respect for people that tell that balance should be made for top play only. Usually the most math and science illiterate people post such things. This simply doesn't make sense and is destroying the game. A game balanced in a tought out way is balanced across all skill levels. And no, that's not impossible. It's impossible if you think balance can be achieved by messing only with unit stats. Arrogant. Ignorant. Please explain how am i ignorant. Thank you. Its so obvious its painful to try to explain it. Why would you balance around something as meaningless as the ladder? Pro tournaments are the only things that matter. Because the game is about those who purchased it, not the exclusive minority that goes to tournaments. Why was the the thread not closed after this? Just because you agree, it doesn't mean it's right. It doesn't matter. Balancing for ladder is a lost cause because there is a substantial group of people that isn't skilled enough for minute balance changes to make a tonne of difference. People under Masters league can win just by sheer outmacro in any given scenario, because the people they're playing against are bad. What's more, people on ladder copy the strategies of pro players, which means that pro players need to be playing a balanced game, or there aren't going to be any pro players after a time. This means that the strategic morphing of the game stops, the spectating stops, and people lose interest in the game. Blizzard shouldn't balance the game for Bronze just because a lot of people are in Bronze. Doing so would make the game unplayable for anyone else, and would kill the competitive scene.
You mention bronze, then you mention masters, then someone mentions GM. So where do you draw the line? Balance on the ladder is only a lost cause if you think balance for pros is the lost cause. Even pros abilities drasticly grow over time which according to your argument would make the balance deprecate over time...
|
On July 11 2012 00:19 BlaineMono wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 00:14 Shiori wrote:On July 11 2012 00:10 toiletCAT wrote:On July 10 2012 23:00 VanGooL wrote:On July 10 2012 22:54 iamperfection wrote:On July 10 2012 22:51 BlaineMono wrote:On July 10 2012 22:50 Koshi wrote:On July 10 2012 22:12 BlaineMono wrote:
I have very little respect for people that tell that balance should be made for top play only. Usually the most math and science illiterate people post such things. This simply doesn't make sense and is destroying the game. A game balanced in a tought out way is balanced across all skill levels. And no, that's not impossible. It's impossible if you think balance can be achieved by messing only with unit stats. Arrogant. Ignorant. Please explain how am i ignorant. Thank you. Its so obvious its painful to try to explain it. Why would you balance around something as meaningless as the ladder? Pro tournaments are the only things that matter. Because the game is about those who purchased it, not the exclusive minority that goes to tournaments. Why was the the thread not closed after this? Just because you agree, it doesn't mean it's right. It doesn't matter. Balancing for ladder is a lost cause because there is a substantial group of people that isn't skilled enough for minute balance changes to make a tonne of difference. People under Masters league can win just by sheer outmacro in any given scenario, because the people they're playing against are bad. What's more, people on ladder copy the strategies of pro players, which means that pro players need to be playing a balanced game, or there aren't going to be any pro players after a time. This means that the strategic morphing of the game stops, the spectating stops, and people lose interest in the game. Blizzard shouldn't balance the game for Bronze just because a lot of people are in Bronze. Doing so would make the game unplayable for anyone else, and would kill the competitive scene. You mention bronze, then you mention masters, then someone mentions GM. So where do you draw the line? Balance on the ladder is only a lost cause if you think balance for pros is the lost cause. Even pros abilities drasticly grow over time which according to your argument would make the balance deprecate over time...
Ideally I'd draw the line at pros, because the gap between even a mediocre pro player and an average GM player is massive. However, I'd be fine with including GM and maybe very high Masters just because it would give a larger sample size. I don't care, for example, that sub-Masters TvP is Protoss favoured because Terrans in that league lack the mechanics to make things work. I only care if/when it's an issue at the highest level, because until then the players who are having trouble can simply improve and start winning again.
We should always be balancing for the highest level of competition that we have.
|
On July 11 2012 00:18 Heh_ wrote:
Very thinly disguised balance whine.
If you think you're smarter than the balance team, you can apply for their job. Or you can do what others have attempted: create a mod with your own "balance". And then stare into space as nobody plays it.
I understand what you wrote and it's definately easy to be on the complaining side. But I think all reasonable people (including the pros) can agree that Blizz balancing team (DK & DB) have absolutely no clue what they are doing and they don't seem to mind it.
|
On July 11 2012 00:10 toiletCAT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 23:00 VanGooL wrote:On July 10 2012 22:54 iamperfection wrote:On July 10 2012 22:51 BlaineMono wrote:On July 10 2012 22:50 Koshi wrote:On July 10 2012 22:12 BlaineMono wrote:
I have very little respect for people that tell that balance should be made for top play only. Usually the most math and science illiterate people post such things. This simply doesn't make sense and is destroying the game. A game balanced in a tought out way is balanced across all skill levels. And no, that's not impossible. It's impossible if you think balance can be achieved by messing only with unit stats. Arrogant. Ignorant. Please explain how am i ignorant. Thank you. Its so obvious its painful to try to explain it. Why would you balance around something as meaningless as the ladder? Pro tournaments are the only things that matter. Because the game is about those who purchased it, not the exclusive minority that goes to tournaments. Just because you agree, it doesn't mean it's right.
People like you.... wow.
I'll just put it this way : people playing the game as close to perfect as possible are the type of people the game should be balanced around. If you cannot understand that, then I recommend you get sterilized asap for the good of humanity.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On July 11 2012 00:14 BlaineMono wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 23:40 Sylverin wrote:
I generally dont post in these flamefests but here goes.. Balance at GM level is the only one that matters. Why? Because, that is the only group of people playing the game right or at the very least as right as possible they know more about what works and doesn't and are capable of actually seeing the game for what it is. When I was in bronze I thought void rays were imba as fuck, and now they are useless and I am only platinum. OP you need to chill out if people don't agree with you, that doesn't mean you are wrong it just means we don't agree stop getting so heated bro :D Hey, I don't mind people not agreeing with me when they explain the reasoning behind their argument. Just tired of those drones above writing a single line: 'Balance should be made based on GM and pro' and not even giving any argument why. You also make a flawed argument by saying the same about GM, and then you give an example of bronze player, like there is nothing in between those leagues. You think what people do in masters and diamond or w/e doesn't make any sense? Where do you draw the line? What does it mean someone's a GM? Being a GM means anything only in a context; a context that there are other people in other leagues, that the guy is better than.
You haven't given much of an answer to what should be done to balance all through the leagues either. You haven't even begun to. All you've done is call more or less everyone stupid then said that we should magically balance everything through microability and changed macro abilities.
Being a pro or at least GM means you know what you're doing and how small details change the matchups. The guy you quoted typed it out for you but it seems you missed it. Here it is again: People in platinum/diamond/masters can look at what people at the top are doing and if they practise enough and have enough innate RTS skills they should be able to increase their winrate.
|
On July 11 2012 00:22 BlaineMono wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 00:18 Heh_ wrote:
Very thinly disguised balance whine.
If you think you're smarter than the balance team, you can apply for their job. Or you can do what others have attempted: create a mod with your own "balance". And then stare into space as nobody plays it. I understand what you wrote and it's definately easy to be on the complaining side. But I think all reasonable people (including the pros) can agree that Blizz balancing team (DK & DB) have absolutely no clue what they are doing and they don't seem to mind it.
So you think you're better than them? Create your own mod, and watch it fail hilariously.
All reasonable people? You're deluding yourself.
|
On July 11 2012 00:19 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 23:55 BlaineMono wrote:On July 10 2012 23:18 Oshuy wrote:On July 10 2012 22:12 BlaineMono wrote:If race X is more powerful than race Y than if you have two players of each race on the same skill level, the X race guy will have higher MMR but the same win rate as player X (because obviously he will be matched with tougher opponents). This supposes that: 1- there is such a thing as "skill", one dimensional and valid across all leagues 2- there is a function F that gives a MMR value for a couple (skill, race), 3- that F is monotonic and rising with skill 4- that an ordering between races exists, so that if "race A" > "race B" then F(x,A)>F(x,B) for all x I would agree with other posts that 4 is the easiest to prove wrong, although I also disagree with the other points. It's easiest to prove wrong, yet you conviniently left it out of your post. And to the first three points I would only add that F is a changing function for each player. F is a changing function for each player ?? Do you realize that this makes no sense at all ? No need to be so arrogant in your OP and replies when you clearly don't fully understand the problem yourself...
It makes no sense why exactly? If you would identify skill with a number it would be definately not be a constant - every pro has bad days and there are thousands of factors that have an effect on a particular players performance. But you can definately say that Nestea is more skilled than some random bronze player. It's an approximation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
