|
On July 10 2012 23:40 BlaineMono wrote:
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. I'm the first person to ignore the tone of the post and respond. There is plenty of legitimate discussion on this forum, but if you open your thread this way you discourage discussion.
On July 10 2012 23:40 BlaineMono wrote: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? When you can't play the game properly, what is there to balance? Why should I or Blizzard care if Bronze Protoss has a 70% winrate over Bronze Terran when both players haven't engaged at the 15-minute mark and have 20 workers a piece? That point remains true to a lesser degree as you go up the leagues. Why should I care about the balance of my own league (Platinum) when I end the game with too much queen energy?
On July 10 2012 23:40 BlaineMono wrote: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. Firstly, there is no burden of proof. This is a discussion, not a court of law. If you find my argument to be uncompelling, I will attempt to provide evidence, but I'm ultimately fine with you disagreeing. I am of no obligation to prove anything to you.
Secondly, I didn't make any claim here. What I said was that the statistic that you were referencing has the problem of not being able to account for these tendencies which are bound to exist. For example, several of my friends who played the game casually, played Terran simply because that was the only race in the campaign.
While this is anecdotal and not proof that a preference exists, it is a good example of the type of preference that would confound the usefulness of MMR distribution as a metric of balance.
On July 10 2012 23:40 BlaineMono wrote: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. Your opinion of the professional play level is your own. I find it to be acceptable.
The types of patches that we are currently seeing are inherently more stable changes than core gameplay. Wait until the HotS beta is out and you'll see what I mean.
|
On July 11 2012 00:23 imMUTAble787 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. 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.
And I'm arrogant...
Why balance around the pros? They are scrubs. Why not balance around a hypothetical perfect play then? What is your reason to balancing the game according to a current group of top players if their abilities aren't even perfected yet? Wows don't really make you look clever. REASON?
|
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.
Blizzard has already confirmed that at lower levels, there is a preference for Terran by the players who begin playing ladder after learning the game through playing the campaign.
|
proof read your OP's next time, it's hard to take you seriously when you talk about intelligence and can't even spell words correctly. Whine! 
|
On July 11 2012 00:34 BlaineMono wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 00:23 imMUTAble787 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. 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. And I'm arrogant... Why balance around the pros? They are scrubs. Why not balance around a hypothetical perfect play then? What is your reason to balancing the game according to a current group of top players if their abilities aren't even perfected yet? Wows don't really make you look clever. REASON?
If there were a standard of perfect play that we could actually observe, then we'd balance around that, but the fact is that we have no way of knowing what that play would look like. What we do know is that the first people that are going to get there are the pros, and we know this because of the way BW evolved. Therefore, we need to make sure the game is balanced based on strategies the pros implement and discover, because their mechanics are the ceiling for what anyone has achieved right now. When the pros improve enough to change the metagame, it's worth changing the balance, but until then, we want to keep this game exciting and competitive.
Either way, nothing about what you suggest entails that we should be balancing for the even scrubbier players.
|
guys your discussion leads nowhere you just flame eachother.
I calculated balance data with mmr and can prove the statistic significant without having to relay on assumptions or win/loose ratio or inaccurate league system.
I publish it as soon as i have ok from mods because i dont want it to turn out like this thread...
|
On July 11 2012 00:33 TrippSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2012 23:40 BlaineMono wrote: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? When you can't play the game properly, what is there to balance? Why should I or Blizzard care if Bronze Protoss has a 70% winrate over Bronze Terran when both players haven't engaged at the 15-minute mark and have 20 workers a piece? That point remains true to a lesser degree as you go up the leagues. Why should I care about the balance of my own league (Platinum) when I end the game with too much queen energy?.
I'm curious of your definition of proper play. The pros are also incompetent you know, just a bit less then average. They are best but are also super far from optimal play. If you want to balance the game your way, why not do it around Automaton?
On July 11 2012 00:38 llSpektrll wrote:proof read your OP's next time, it's hard to take you seriously when you talk about intelligence and can't even spell words correctly. Whine!
Hey, thanks for your great input. I really must be the person with worst english on the planet, right? I'm not really a native english speaker. I'd really enjoy you even try to speak my language. Next time please try to address the points made. Or if you actually want to be any constructive you can point out where i made mistakes so at least some good can come out of it.
|
On July 11 2012 00:41 BlaineMono wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 00:33 TrippSC2 wrote:On July 10 2012 23:40 BlaineMono wrote: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? When you can't play the game properly, what is there to balance? Why should I or Blizzard care if Bronze Protoss has a 70% winrate over Bronze Terran when both players haven't engaged at the 15-minute mark and have 20 workers a piece? That point remains true to a lesser degree as you go up the leagues. Why should I care about the balance of my own league (Platinum) when I end the game with too much queen energy?. I'm curious of your definition of proper play. The pros are also incompetent you know, just a bit less then average. They are best but are also super far from optimal play. If you want to balance the game your way, why not do it around Automaton?
Because the game is played by humans, and humans are better at the game than bots?
Now you're grasping at straws.
|
On July 11 2012 00:41 BlaineMono wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 00:33 TrippSC2 wrote:On July 10 2012 23:40 BlaineMono wrote: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? When you can't play the game properly, what is there to balance? Why should I or Blizzard care if Bronze Protoss has a 70% winrate over Bronze Terran when both players haven't engaged at the 15-minute mark and have 20 workers a piece? That point remains true to a lesser degree as you go up the leagues. Why should I care about the balance of my own league (Platinum) when I end the game with too much queen energy?. I'm curious of your definition of proper play. The pros are also incompetent you know, just a bit less then average. They are best but are also super far from optimal play. If you want to balance the game your way, why not do it around Automaton?
This is such a cop out. Pro play is as close to optimal human play as we can see. People in the lower leagues could, potentially, practise and do what pros do if they had the time and dedication.
That's what's observable, disregarding it (like we do bronze or platinum players) because pros still make mistakes is beyond silly.
|
Regardless of MMR, it seems like match winrates are still the best indicator of balance. MMR targets an overall winrate of 50%, but you only have 1 MMR. If a matchup is imbalanced, you'd expect overall winrates in that matchup to be <50%.
|
On July 11 2012 00:41 BlaineMono wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 00:33 TrippSC2 wrote:On July 10 2012 23:40 BlaineMono wrote: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? When you can't play the game properly, what is there to balance? Why should I or Blizzard care if Bronze Protoss has a 70% winrate over Bronze Terran when both players haven't engaged at the 15-minute mark and have 20 workers a piece? That point remains true to a lesser degree as you go up the leagues. Why should I care about the balance of my own league (Platinum) when I end the game with too much queen energy?. I'm curious of your definition of proper play. The pros are also incompetent you know, just a bit less then average. They are best but are also super far from optimal play. If you want to balance the game your way, why not do it around Automaton?
I'm starting to think you're just trolling.
The fact is that there is an industry that surrounds this game at the highest currently attainable level. It makes sense to balance around that industry. That shouldn't need much more elaboration to make sense.
|
On July 10 2012 23:40 BlaineMono wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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? Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
Show nested quote +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 :-)
Posting from my phone so I can't edit the post down but in regards to the 80% PvZ, 80%ZvT, and 80%TvP he means that by your metric the game would appear balanced P,Z,T all 50% overall winrate but when you check the PvX stats you'd see that P is completely OP vZ but terrible vT which is why no one metric can truly represent balance. They're all inherently flawed on their own.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
Let us assume (and I think it is a fair assumption) that there exists Perfect P, Perfect T, Perfect Z, a state of playing each race perfectly. This Perfect state can be represented by a set of numbers that represent various skills, abilities, game sense, BOs, mechanics, etc that make up the Perfect P/T/Z. We assume that each element in the set is equal in importance, or we can group together sub-elements to create equal elements. Each P T or Z set can contain different skills even though they are denoted by the same numbers. These elements are also assumed to be of equal value.
Now, we assume another kind of state, Imperfect P, T and Z, states of playing each race with variance from perfection. The higher the level of play, the lower the variance; the lower the level of play, the higher the variance from the Perfect set.
(Note: I do not mean variance in a statistics context (how far a number strays from the mean). In this case it basically means how different something is from the Perfect set).
Assuming the game is balanced at the Perfect set level, each set Perfect P/T/Z should be equal in value. Assuming the game is balanced at some Imperfect set (-x) P/T/Z, all variations of those Imperfect sets should be equal.
Each player can be simplified into a set of different skills for their race, and the game should be balance for an "average" set. The argument we keep having is whether that average set should only consist of data from Pro players, or consist of Data from ALL players of all skill levels. My argument is that there is too much variance in lower levels for their data to be useful or reasonable to be used in balancing the game.
Let me explain.
Perfect state P or T or Z contains {1, 2, 3, 4, ... 100}; this is the perfect state of playing each race.
Imperfect state, with variance, will contain less than 100. However, Imperfect states with equal variance (that is, equally far from the Perfect state), may or may not contain the same numbers even though they are equally skillful (since we assume each element is of equal skill value).
I denote it "Imperfect set (variance from Perfect) example letter {}"
Imperfect T set (-1) A: {1, 2, 4, ... 100}
Imperfect T set (-1) B: {1, 3, 4, ... 100}
See, that both Imperfect sets (-1) A and B vary from the Perfect set by 1 element, but that element is different for each set. These two sets can be assumed to be GM players of equal skill.
Now let us look at two Silver players:
Imperfect T set (-80) C: {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20}
Imperfect T set (-80) D: {21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40}
You can see that both C and D players should be equal in skill (-80) from Perfect. However, how they differ from the Perfect set is completely different.
Now, if we have two players of different races, with equal skill, but also different skillsets:
Imperfect P set (-80) E: {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20}
Imperfect Z set (-80) F: {21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40}
What I am trying to illustrate is that at the Perfect State of playing the game, there is far less variance between each player. At lower levels of the game, there is greater variance in each person's skillset and ability, even though they are of equal overall skill. Herein lies the difficulty in balancing at lower levels of the game: there is greater variance in skills, abilities, game sense, mechanical skill, etc.
Do note that I am not saying that the game should not be balanced at lower levels; I am saying that because there is greater variance, it is almost impossible to balance the game for each Imperfect skillset. Taking my example of a silver league player with Imperfect set (-80), there are... well, an absurd number of different skillsets(100 choose 20) to balance for. At near perfect levels, there are only 100 choose 99/90/some high number different skillsets or player types to balance for. It is almost impossible to find Imperfect P set (-99) i = Imperfect T set (-99) i = Imperfect Z set (-99) i. Where i = all variations of these sets.
Do we balance the game based on each race's Perfect state, or do we balance at the Imperfect state?
Obviously we have yet to reach the Perfect set, and we most likely never will, but balancing based on players closer to the Perfect set is easier and more stable than balancing for all levels. I'd even argue, based on my above arguments, that it is impossible to balance at lower levels.
TL;DR: It's impossible to balance at lower levels because there is too much variance with the skillsets for lower league players.
|
You are underestimating the knowledge, studies, careers and wits of many people inside this community. You are being so arrogant, and worst, without numbers, statistics, results and real discussion you are being plainly absurd.
|
The reason you cant balance easily at low levels without affecting the upper levels is that glaring holes in peoples play make the balancing process very difficult. When i was in silver, my macro was (relatively) very good; if I was allowed to take a 3rd uncontested and just macro up i had a very high win percentage. However, my micro was absolutely terrible; so if i was under any form of pressure that required micro i would almost always lose. At the pro level, things are much closer and that should ultimately be what is examined for balance.
And seeing as that is the case, please stop threads like this; they inevitably become balance whine.
Thnik about how long was zerg destroyed by protoss in BW before the bisu build compared to the month and a half since the queen buff that people are complaining about. thats what patches do; they make you reevaluate your strategies and explore new styles/areas of play.
|
On July 11 2012 00:45 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 00:41 BlaineMono wrote:On July 11 2012 00:33 TrippSC2 wrote:On July 10 2012 23:40 BlaineMono wrote: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? When you can't play the game properly, what is there to balance? Why should I or Blizzard care if Bronze Protoss has a 70% winrate over Bronze Terran when both players haven't engaged at the 15-minute mark and have 20 workers a piece? That point remains true to a lesser degree as you go up the leagues. Why should I care about the balance of my own league (Platinum) when I end the game with too much queen energy?. I'm curious of your definition of proper play. The pros are also incompetent you know, just a bit less then average. They are best but are also super far from optimal play. If you want to balance the game your way, why not do it around Automaton? This is such a cop out. Pro play is as close to optimal human play as we can see. People in the lower leagues could, potentially, practise and do what pros do if they had the time and dedication. That's what's observable, disregarding it (like we do bronze or platinum players) because pros still make mistakes is beyond silly.
How is that a cop out? You don't want to balance on everyone, yet do you don't want to balance around perfect play. You want to balance according to what 32 players can do at a particular moment in time.
|
On July 11 2012 00:51 BlaineMono wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 00:45 karpo wrote:On July 11 2012 00:41 BlaineMono wrote:On July 11 2012 00:33 TrippSC2 wrote:On July 10 2012 23:40 BlaineMono wrote: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? When you can't play the game properly, what is there to balance? Why should I or Blizzard care if Bronze Protoss has a 70% winrate over Bronze Terran when both players haven't engaged at the 15-minute mark and have 20 workers a piece? That point remains true to a lesser degree as you go up the leagues. Why should I care about the balance of my own league (Platinum) when I end the game with too much queen energy?. I'm curious of your definition of proper play. The pros are also incompetent you know, just a bit less then average. They are best but are also super far from optimal play. If you want to balance the game your way, why not do it around Automaton? This is such a cop out. Pro play is as close to optimal human play as we can see. People in the lower leagues could, potentially, practise and do what pros do if they had the time and dedication. That's what's observable, disregarding it (like we do bronze or platinum players) because pros still make mistakes is beyond silly. How is that a cop out? You don't want to balance on everyone, yet do you don't want to balance around perfect play. You want to balance according to what 32 players can do at a particular moment in time.
Yes, because perfect play is unattainable by a human being and doesn't even look anything like what a human being will ever be able to do.
|
On July 11 2012 00:51 BlaineMono wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 00:45 karpo wrote:On July 11 2012 00:41 BlaineMono wrote:On July 11 2012 00:33 TrippSC2 wrote:On July 10 2012 23:40 BlaineMono wrote: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? When you can't play the game properly, what is there to balance? Why should I or Blizzard care if Bronze Protoss has a 70% winrate over Bronze Terran when both players haven't engaged at the 15-minute mark and have 20 workers a piece? That point remains true to a lesser degree as you go up the leagues. Why should I care about the balance of my own league (Platinum) when I end the game with too much queen energy?. I'm curious of your definition of proper play. The pros are also incompetent you know, just a bit less then average. They are best but are also super far from optimal play. If you want to balance the game your way, why not do it around Automaton? This is such a cop out. Pro play is as close to optimal human play as we can see. People in the lower leagues could, potentially, practise and do what pros do if they had the time and dedication. That's what's observable, disregarding it (like we do bronze or platinum players) because pros still make mistakes is beyond silly. How is that a cop out? You don't want to balance on everyone, yet do you don't want to balance around perfect play. You want to balance according to what 32 players can do at a particular moment in time.
It's a cop out because you're stupid if you don't understand that we can't know what true perfect play is. Also you've not suggested anything that would actually balance every league, all you've done is said it should be done with micro/macro mechanics yet nothing more concrete than that.
|
On July 11 2012 00:48 TrippSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 00:41 BlaineMono wrote:On July 11 2012 00:33 TrippSC2 wrote:On July 10 2012 23:40 BlaineMono wrote: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? When you can't play the game properly, what is there to balance? Why should I or Blizzard care if Bronze Protoss has a 70% winrate over Bronze Terran when both players haven't engaged at the 15-minute mark and have 20 workers a piece? That point remains true to a lesser degree as you go up the leagues. Why should I care about the balance of my own league (Platinum) when I end the game with too much queen energy?. I'm curious of your definition of proper play. The pros are also incompetent you know, just a bit less then average. They are best but are also super far from optimal play. If you want to balance the game your way, why not do it around Automaton? I'm starting to think you're just trolling.The fact is that there is an industry that surrounds this game at the highest currently attainable level. It makes sense to balance around that industry. That shouldn't need much more elaboration to make sense.
If you are not trolling. Please reread this thread without the assumption that you are right.
Lower leagues need a modicum of balance to make things fun. MMR will balance out the inconsistencies as long as things are reasonably even.
Professional play needs a very balanced game so that skill, not race selection, is the deciding factor.
Ideal play (balancing for perfect macro/micro, like the OP suggests) makes for interesting theory-crafting. But, it's a moot point.
|
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 don't get it, though. This is a game for everyone, regardless of how bad players can be. They purchased this game, they have the right to be included in the changes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
