|
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 that is the way to balance the game without horribly breaking it. How do you balance a game where banelings are the hard counter to marines in plat and below and almost useless vs them in diamond and above? How do you balance a game where marine ghost is a very strong comp in top masters and a useless comp below because of the micro it takes to execute it? You can't. You do it at the highest level because that is the level people have to reach towards
We also can't balance perfect play because it's impossible for humans to play perfectly, due to our limitations (there is only 1 Flash),
|
On July 11 2012 00:57 toiletCAT 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 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.
They aren't losing games and money because of balance. They losing because they suck and make fundamental mistakes. The gameplay that exists in Gold league isn't even really Starcraft 2. It is to Sc2 what HORSE is to basketball.
It's not like noobs are suffering because of any balance changes, anyway. Whenever there's been something stupidly overpowered that's affected everyone, it's been promptly changed. As a game, though, Sc2 is past those sort of problems. At a low, low level, the better player will usually win.
|
On July 11 2012 00:54 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 00:51 BlaineMono wrote: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.
I don't want to give any example of such change because, as I stated in the OP, I don't want to even bring concrete race discussion to this thread. This was suppose to be the discussion of MMR league system more than anything else. I'm sure everyone can think of a change that doesn't include changing damage or range but the way a particular unit works.
|
On July 11 2012 00:49 lichter wrote:
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.
Wow great post.
|
On July 11 2012 00:58 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 00:57 toiletCAT wrote: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 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. They aren't losing games and money because of balance. They losing because they suck and make fundamental mistakes. The gameplay that exists in Gold league isn't even really Starcraft 2. It is to Sc2 what HORSE is to basketball.
It's as much StarCraft 2 as the gameplay in Grandmaster league is StarCraft 2, you cannot argue against that, and really, that was a dumb-ass argument.
|
On July 11 2012 00:57 toiletCAT 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 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.
So what do you suggest? Balancing to bronze league players? Balancing to individual requests? If you designed a game (or anything for that matter) to every whim and fancy of players, you don't get a good game. You get a piece of shit that's unplayable.
|
On July 11 2012 00:59 toiletCAT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 00:58 Shiori wrote:On July 11 2012 00:57 toiletCAT wrote: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 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. They aren't losing games and money because of balance. They losing because they suck and make fundamental mistakes. The gameplay that exists in Gold league isn't even really Starcraft 2. It is to Sc2 what HORSE is to basketball. It's as much StarCraft 2 as the gameplay in Grandmaster league is StarCraft 2, you cannot argue against that, and really, that was a dumb-ass argument.
I can argue against that. I just did. People playing at a Bronze level aren't playing the game well/properly. There's no way to balance for them, barring egregious problems, because they're basically just screwing around relative to what actual skilled players do.
|
On July 10 2012 22:37 Zanno wrote:Show nested quote +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. no, it isn't if you tried to balance brood war across all levels, you'd end up nerfing protoss into the ground, because protoss is by far the strongest at low level play, and as a result top level korean professional play becomes even more of a tvz-fest than it already is so your entire argument has been shut down in 1 run-on sentence, i'm afraid
the problem is that sc1 is a different game and the balance there is well... different. If you force people below diamond to play sc1 as T and Z they would suck, but not because the balance is bad but because the game mechanics punish slow players too much for Z and T. Those kind of things have been fixed. The OP is right in saying that the balance can be achieved not only by messing with unit stats.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On July 11 2012 00:59 aintthatfunny wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 00:49 lichter wrote:
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. Wow great post.
Well I'm glad someone read it because I stopped laddering to type all that >.>
|
On July 11 2012 00:59 Heh_ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 00:57 toiletCAT wrote: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 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. So what do you suggest? Balancing to bronze league players? Balancing to individual requests? If you designed a game (or anything for that matter) to every whim and fancy of players, you don't get a good game. You get a piece of shit that's unplayable.
Balancing takes time, give it time. Blizzard will obviously balance the game from a standpoint of the most skilled players, let them do that.
|
On July 11 2012 00:57 13_Doomblaze_37 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 00:51 BlaineMono wrote: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 that is the way to balance the game without horribly breaking it. How do you balance a game where banelings are the hard counter to marines in plat and below and almost useless vs them in diamond and above? How do you balance a game where marine ghost is a very strong comp in top masters and a useless comp below because of the micro it takes to execute it? You can't. You do it at the highest level because that is the level people have to reach towards We also can't balance perfect play because it's impossible for humans to play perfectly, due to our limitations (there is only 1 Flash),
This is the only post that I will make involving a particular matchup discussion, just to give an example of what I mean by my suggestion. And this is only an example of a way of thinking- I'm not an advocate for this change!
You make it possible to counter banelings by something which requires less or same amount of skill that it is required to use banelings. Or make banelings harder to use.
|
On July 11 2012 01:03 toiletCAT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 00:59 Heh_ wrote:On July 11 2012 00:57 toiletCAT wrote: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 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. So what do you suggest? Balancing to bronze league players? Balancing to individual requests? If you designed a game (or anything for that matter) to every whim and fancy of players, you don't get a good game. You get a piece of shit that's unplayable. Balancing takes time, give it time. Blizzard will obviously balance the game from a standpoint of the most skilled players, let them do that.
What a contentless post. If you were just going to revert back to agreeing with everyone else, then you shouldn't have posted contrarian bullshit to begin with.
|
Okay guys. I know from the OP, Blaine here comes off kind of arrogant and superior. Put that aside, though, and he makes multiple good points. For what concrete reasons can a game not be accurately balanced throughout all skill levels. And it seems to me that his balance checking suggestion is one of the most intuitive I've heard in a long time.
|
On July 11 2012 01:01 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 00:59 toiletCAT wrote:On July 11 2012 00:58 Shiori wrote:On July 11 2012 00:57 toiletCAT wrote: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:
[quote]
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. They aren't losing games and money because of balance. They losing because they suck and make fundamental mistakes. The gameplay that exists in Gold league isn't even really Starcraft 2. It is to Sc2 what HORSE is to basketball. It's as much StarCraft 2 as the gameplay in Grandmaster league is StarCraft 2, you cannot argue against that, and really, that was a dumb-ass argument. I can argue against that. I just did. People playing at a Bronze level aren't playing the game well/properly. There's no way to balance for them, barring egregious problems, because they're basically just screwing around relative to what actual skilled players do.
No, you cannot, and you did not. You cannot say that one player is playing the game "more properly" than another. What I think you're on about is "balancing the game after the better player's standpoint", which is a method that I think is good. Also, I don't know why you're talking about balancing the game specifically by catering to lower leagues, that would be dumb.
|
On July 11 2012 01:05 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 01:03 toiletCAT wrote:On July 11 2012 00:59 Heh_ wrote:On July 11 2012 00:57 toiletCAT wrote: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:
[quote]
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. So what do you suggest? Balancing to bronze league players? Balancing to individual requests? If you designed a game (or anything for that matter) to every whim and fancy of players, you don't get a good game. You get a piece of shit that's unplayable. Balancing takes time, give it time. Blizzard will obviously balance the game from a standpoint of the most skilled players, let them do that. What a contentless post. If you were just going to revert back to agreeing with everyone else, then you shouldn't have posted contrarian bullshit to begin with.
You shouldn't respond to toiletcat he is a known troll.
|
On July 11 2012 01:05 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 01:03 toiletCAT wrote:On July 11 2012 00:59 Heh_ wrote:On July 11 2012 00:57 toiletCAT wrote: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:
[quote]
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. So what do you suggest? Balancing to bronze league players? Balancing to individual requests? If you designed a game (or anything for that matter) to every whim and fancy of players, you don't get a good game. You get a piece of shit that's unplayable. Balancing takes time, give it time. Blizzard will obviously balance the game from a standpoint of the most skilled players, let them do that. What a contentless post. If you were just going to revert back to agreeing with everyone else, then you shouldn't have posted contrarian bullshit to begin with.
I never disagreed with what "everyone (lol)" said, in terms of balancing. I simply pointed out that it's wrong to exclude the majority of players because they're "worse" than you.
|
On July 11 2012 01:07 Roxor9999 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 01:05 Shiori wrote:On July 11 2012 01:03 toiletCAT wrote:On July 11 2012 00:59 Heh_ wrote:On July 11 2012 00:57 toiletCAT wrote: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:
[quote]
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. So what do you suggest? Balancing to bronze league players? Balancing to individual requests? If you designed a game (or anything for that matter) to every whim and fancy of players, you don't get a good game. You get a piece of shit that's unplayable. Balancing takes time, give it time. Blizzard will obviously balance the game from a standpoint of the most skilled players, let them do that. What a contentless post. If you were just going to revert back to agreeing with everyone else, then you shouldn't have posted contrarian bullshit to begin with. You shouldn't respond to toiletcat he is a known troll.
Apparently. Th guy just did a complete 180 in two pages.
|
On July 11 2012 01:07 Roxor9999 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 01:05 Shiori wrote:On July 11 2012 01:03 toiletCAT wrote:On July 11 2012 00:59 Heh_ wrote:On July 11 2012 00:57 toiletCAT wrote: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:
[quote]
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. So what do you suggest? Balancing to bronze league players? Balancing to individual requests? If you designed a game (or anything for that matter) to every whim and fancy of players, you don't get a good game. You get a piece of shit that's unplayable. Balancing takes time, give it time. Blizzard will obviously balance the game from a standpoint of the most skilled players, let them do that. What a contentless post. If you were just going to revert back to agreeing with everyone else, then you shouldn't have posted contrarian bullshit to begin with. You shouldn't respond to toiletcat he is a known troll.
And now is the time where I realize I'm too mature for this discussion. :-) Toodles.
|
Arrogant OP is arrogant. It easy to come up with an analogy that effectively shows a major flaw with this argument. Let’s switch the sport from Starcraft to Tennis and change “race” to the brand of tennis racket that the players use.
OP, ask yourself this, would your analysis still work in this situation? If a high proportion of bad players use a brand famous for beginner rackets, does it matter to the professional player at all? Moreover, is it even useful in this situation to include statistics from separate tiers outside the highest ones?
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.
What a piss poor application of Russel’s teapot. When the default hypothesis itself is an assertion, you can’t plug your ears and ignore the alternative explanations for the data. This kind of bull shit is what makes me strongly concerned on how well you did in statistics and the stability of your “logical” assertions.
|
To lichter, your notation is awful, poorly explained and so your explanation does not make sense.
Whether the game is balanced around the top players, the theoretical best possible play, the average player or Bronze league players is a design decision that doesn't really have anything to do with math and statistics.
The OPs suggestion to use the number of players of each race in each league as a proportion of the total number of players of each race is flawed. Different races maybe easier or harder to play. For example, P is considered easy to play at a low level, so it may have a small proportion of players in GM simply because a very large proportion of Bronze players play P, i.e. Bronze players can stuff up GM stats.
Blizzard's "skill-adjusted" win ratio is the best measure of balance. It's a posterior mean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes_estimator#Posterior_mean), which basically means it's a function of skill, such that if you sub in a skill level you get the probability of winning for a player of that skill in a particular matchup, derived using Bayesian inference. We know it's a posterior mean because they showed the equation at Blizzcon (the equation can be found on the Internet if you look for it). Essentially, it gives the probability of winning in a matchup when skill is fixed at some level, say the top 1%.
Looking at Korean (or global) tournament win rates is an OK measure of skill, but the problem is that it isn't skill adjusted, or equivalently, it is skill-adjusted under the assumption that all the players in the sample are equally skilled, which is a wrong assumption, although probably not wrong enough to make these tournament stats worthless. So there are some issues with using tournament stats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
