|
On January 28 2017 08:36 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 08:06 [[Starlight]] wrote:On January 27 2017 11:10 ninazerg wrote:On January 27 2017 07:08 [[Starlight]] wrote:3- The person who offers earnest but obviously bad, game-breaking balance ideas, such as, well... name one. Bad, not well-thought out balance suggestions are everywhere.  4- The guy who might actually have good balance ideas but thinks his ideas are the ONLY good ones, and argues in an angry, non-constructive way with everyone else until they (he hopes) roll over and accept him as the second coming of Rob Pardo or whoever. So, you can get why some ppl hate balance discussions so much. But, they are still interesting, and some ppl do have good ideas... that will likely never be implemented.
Name one good idea from this thread, concerning balance.
I'm sure if I did, you would pooh-pooh it/pick it apart. So you're saying that ideas might be criticized by me? That's... horrifying. Well, silly sarcasm aside Nina... constructive criticism is always a good thing, and I'm pretty accepting of it. But there's constructive criticism, and then there's 'I just want to shoot down everything you say because I've already made up mind' criticism, which isn't really useful. And I suspect that's where you're going with this, not just by your tone (sarcastic), but also by your answer below... Rather than going down that very obvious path, let's instead ask YOU, Nina, if there are any balance changes you can think of that would be beneficial. I'm guessing the answer will probably be "no"... even though in other threads, I do remember you saying "nerf tanks."  But you might've been joking, I don't know.
It depends on what you mean by "beneficial". The game is fun. If it wasn't fun, I'm not sure what patch I could do to fix that.
...where you seemed to dodge a pretty straightforward question on the basis of semantics. Kinda reminded me a bit of Bill Clinton during that infamous deposition, where he asked what the meaning of "is", is...  Tell you what, Nina... YOU go ahead and define beneficial any way you like, within reason. That dispensed with, the question remains, "Can you think of ANY balance change, any change at ALL, that you would deem beneficial or positive to BW?". We'll wait. I'm not the one making any balance proposals. You're the one who, apparently, has the ideas to fix Brood War. Why would the impetus ever be on me to think up a balance change when you're the person who is making the proposal? Furthermore, I specifically asked what you meant by "beneficial", and you went to the most extreme example of lawyering with the 'is is' example. You asked a vague question, and I asked you to be more specific, and now you've refused to do so, and somehow are pointing at me and saying, "You're dodging the question." Also, if I gonna put forward a proposal, it would definitely be to make a tank in siege mode shoot a nuke that does 99999 damage.
Dodge, dodge, dodge. We get it Nina... you got nuthin'. Or don't want to.
Disappointing, especially since you're a smart and articulate person. But yeah, a bit close-minded.
It happens.
One last chance. Here, maybe this'll help:
ben·e·fi·cial
ˌbenəˈfiSH(ə)l/
adjective
favorable or advantageous; resulting in good.
|
Holy shit this discussion nosedived fast, I thought the patch was out when I saw 8 new pages. I'm all for theorycrafting and do think there are some minor tweaks you could probably make that wouldn't totally upset the gameplay too much while making things slightly more balanced, but don't think it's worth attempting anything like that at this time for sure (especially with blizzard's track record).
Also, if they were doing any sort of balance changes we'd know about it by now because several of the top-end former Kespa pros would have gone mysteriously silent for the duration of the testing period (because even blizzard wouldn't be crazy/dumb enough to touch the balance of BW without having progamers on board for testing/feedback).
If Flash/Bisu/JD suddenly stopped streaming with little explanation for a 2-6 month window, then I think we'd be talking.
|
On January 28 2017 09:04 tedster wrote:
Holy shit this discussion nosedived fast, I thought the patch was out when I saw 8 new pages. I'm all for theorycrafting and do think there are some minor tweaks you could probably make that wouldn't totally upset the gameplay too much while making things slightly more balanced, but don't think it's worth attempting anything like that at this time for sure (especially with blizzard's track record).
Also, if they were doing any sort of balance changes we'd know about it by now because several of the top-end former Kespa pros would have gone mysteriously silent for the duration of the testing period (because even blizzard wouldn't be crazy/dumb enough to touch the balance of BW without having progamers on board for testing/feedback).
If Flash/Bisu/JD suddenly stopped streaming with little explanation for a 2-6 month window, then I think we'd be talking.
There pretty obviously aren't going to be any balance changes (or at least, I'd be shocked if there were).
But that hasn't stopped ppl from getting upset over discussing even the mere *idea* of them.
|
On January 28 2017 05:31 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 03:17 neobowman wrote:On January 28 2017 03:07 2Pacalypse- wrote:On January 28 2017 00:32 neobowman wrote:On January 27 2017 13:52 ninazerg wrote:
Also, I know we all revere former progamers as gods, but their statements are merely opinions, and making that appeal to authority really does nothing to empirically show that there is an inherent imbalance in the game.
I think opinions of top players are very important to take in considering they're the only people for whom this actually matters. Flash: "Blizzard asked all the major ex pro gamers about the next patch for BW around April of last year. One thing everyone told Blizzard not to do was a balance patch" ( source) I would totally agree with them. If it's up to Blizz, then I would expect them to fuck up the gameplay a lot. What I'm saying is that you would probably get a different opinion if the balance changes are minor ones like the ones I proposed. Pretty sure minor balance changes ⊆ balance patch.
Telling Blizz they don't want changes is like telling Trump, "Hey we don't want you to make changes to the Canadian Government." Of course they'll answer no when its Blizz involved. They've seen SC2 balancing. Blizz has been awful at making changes, doesn't mean Pro players will hate any changes at all 100%. If Trump wants to change Canadian government and I have a 100% guarantee that the only change he can possibly make ever is that he'll eliminate FPTP voting and implement a better system, hell yeah I'd be for that.
There's a difference. Players that you've mentioned had winning records against Terran and around 60-70% against Protoss. These figures are closer to 50%, and are based on a handful of tournament wins only, not taking into account maps used or individual player stats.
Okay. That's all correct. It does not deny however, the idea that ZvP seems much easier than ZvT.
You're right, I should've included Battle Royale in this map pool.
Sure, we get one crazy map in the pool. Literally doesn't change my argument except now the stat is 1/13.
This is a thread about a BLIZZARD PATCH.
How is this relevant. We're not discussing "What will Blizzard be doing in terms of balance?"
This was your comment.
Name one good idea from this thread, concerning balance.
My initial ideas for balance changes were all based on the idea of "What would be a good balance change to make?" It's not, "What will Blizzard do?" We know Blizzard isn't going to change balance, that's fine. This is "what changes would we implement if we could?" We have agreed that there exists imbalance in Brood War. I have presented suggestions to fix this type of imbalance. I haven't heard a single good reason of why this type of minor change to unskew the matchups would be bad. All I've seen is people with the preconceived notion that any balance change will be bad just because balance. There have been some people such as Nettle and Starlight that have pitched in to provide more ideas and critique the current ones.
Please, think for a second if this type of minor balance change is actually detrimental to the game. We won't have to tell any player "You're going to lose 5% of your matches in this game just because of the race imbalance." That's the whole plan.
On January 28 2017 07:51 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +
I have never once said that this is not something that can be overcome through hard work. It's a 55% imbalance (averaging TvZ and ZvP). It's barely relevant. But it's there. I don't notice it when I play, 99.99% of the people in the world won't notice it when they play. But it's a damn hard 5% to overcome when you're at a pro level.
Also using statistics the way blizzard do it is just nonsense, 50/50 balance doesnt mean balance it only means statistic balance. If you instead would discuss how the games are won and lost, that would tell something.
This is sound theory if we're talking about 10 games. Not over 1000.
50/50 balance right now,
zerg wins 5 lose 5. In two of those games he lost to a 2factory speed vult cheese, alright sloppy scouting.
In one game he lost to a bio normal push to his natural, he wasnt fully awake when terran moved out and didnt build sunkens in time.
Aight. Let's say Zerg loses 200 games out of 1000 because he makes a mistake. Do you know what that tells me? It's too easy to make a mistake for Zerg. If Zerg has a 1 second timing window to make sunks and be safe, and he screws up 100 times out of 1000, that's a problem.
If zerg had the lurker timing really well, the muta ling micro was outstanding. Then you maybe need to look further. What if at 5:00 in the game, instead of building 4 zerglings, that would have been drones. With the info the mutas bring it shouldnt have been necessary to build those 4lings so those 2drones would gain more over time.
This is how you do balance, not looking at the statstics and letting it speak for you.
Aight. Why bother looking at statistics in the first place for anything? Statistics are clearly bull. Let's throw out the whole notion in everything.
Analysis into gameplay is fine if we're discussing individual players or a certain series. That makes sense. Once you get into a large sample size, statistics becomes more relevant.
Lemme give you an example. In fighting games, you can parry or block. If someone playing character A misses that and loses the game because of it, we say "They made a mistake". That's sound. Now, if character A loses games 30% of the time because of missed blocks/parries while every other character only loses 10% of the time because of it, then there's clearly something up.
For example, if its hard for zerg to take a third IT WILL MATTER ALOT in games that arent played at the pro level because if terran can block the third it gives that race a huge advantage.
This makes the assumption that a D level Terran will find it equally easy to block the third as an A level Terran against Zerg. 95% of the time, a better player will win even with these imbalances. You might lose 5% of the time sure, but that's not a big problem when you can simply practice for an hour every day for a week and then beat the other guy. It's the tip top where everyone's at their best where the real problem lies.
|
|
|
On January 27 2017 16:16 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 15:51 parkufarku wrote:On January 27 2017 01:56 biryusky wrote:
god damn when is this ever gonna stop. Blizzard hasnt touched jack shit about balance since like 10 years ago. Why are we even speculating or suggesting things that dont go anywhere? Because the title of thread says "SC1 is getting patched soon" ??? Are you afraid that Blizzard will finally deservedly nerf Terran and balance ZvT? Oh no, a balanced game incoming, that sounds horrid! Terran doesn't need to be nerfed. The problem with Zergs playing ZvT is that they all do the same build, and do it every game like a robot. It's the match-up that has changed the least in the last 5 years.
I haven't been up to date with this thread but I feel strongly with this statement and agree.
|
On January 27 2017 16:16 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 15:51 parkufarku wrote:On January 27 2017 01:56 biryusky wrote:
god damn when is this ever gonna stop. Blizzard hasnt touched jack shit about balance since like 10 years ago. Why are we even speculating or suggesting things that dont go anywhere? Because the title of thread says "SC1 is getting patched soon" ??? Are you afraid that Blizzard will finally deservedly nerf Terran and balance ZvT? Oh no, a balanced game incoming, that sounds horrid! Terran doesn't need to be nerfed. The problem with Zergs playing ZvT is that they all do the same build, and do it every game like a robot. It's the match-up that has changed the least in the last 5 years.
This quote bothers me. The answer to everything is not "Innovate!" Yes, innovations can come and change matchups but we can't just criticize an entire race because they have not found good alternatives. Lurker builds were popular for a while because mutas weren't working against 5 rax. Sure, they were better. Still not a good solution.
What's the problem with ZvP then? Protosses clearly just aren't innovating enough. Let's assume that these players that are literally being paid to play games (Afreeca still supports them through their gaming and they still spend way more time on improving than anyone else) just haven't figured things out enough.
|
On January 28 2017 08:41 [[Starlight]] wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 08:36 ninazerg wrote:On January 28 2017 08:06 [[Starlight]] wrote:On January 27 2017 11:10 ninazerg wrote:On January 27 2017 07:08 [[Starlight]] wrote:3- The person who offers earnest but obviously bad, game-breaking balance ideas, such as, well... name one. Bad, not well-thought out balance suggestions are everywhere. 4- The guy who might actually have good balance ideas but thinks his ideas are the ONLY good ones, and argues in an angry, non-constructive way with everyone else until they (he hopes) roll over and accept him as the second coming of Rob Pardo or whoever. So, you can get why some ppl hate balance discussions so much. But, they are still interesting, and some ppl do have good ideas... that will likely never be implemented.
Name one good idea from this thread, concerning balance.
I'm sure if I did, you would pooh-pooh it/pick it apart. So you're saying that ideas might be criticized by me? That's... horrifying. Well, silly sarcasm aside Nina... constructive criticism is always a good thing, and I'm pretty accepting of it. But there's constructive criticism, and then there's 'I just want to shoot down everything you say because I've already made up mind' criticism, which isn't really useful. And I suspect that's where you're going with this, not just by your tone (sarcastic), but also by your answer below... Rather than going down that very obvious path, let's instead ask YOU, Nina, if there are any balance changes you can think of that would be beneficial. I'm guessing the answer will probably be "no"... even though in other threads, I do remember you saying "nerf tanks." But you might've been joking, I don't know.
It depends on what you mean by "beneficial". The game is fun. If it wasn't fun, I'm not sure what patch I could do to fix that.
...where you seemed to dodge a pretty straightforward question on the basis of semantics. Kinda reminded me a bit of Bill Clinton during that infamous deposition, where he asked what the meaning of "is", is... Tell you what, Nina... YOU go ahead and define beneficial any way you like, within reason. That dispensed with, the question remains, "Can you think of ANY balance change, any change at ALL, that you would deem beneficial or positive to BW?". We'll wait. I'm not the one making any balance proposals. You're the one who, apparently, has the ideas to fix Brood War. Why would the impetus ever be on me to think up a balance change when you're the person who is making the proposal? Furthermore, I specifically asked what you meant by "beneficial", and you went to the most extreme example of lawyering with the 'is is' example. You asked a vague question, and I asked you to be more specific, and now you've refused to do so, and somehow are pointing at me and saying, "You're dodging the question." Also, if I gonna put forward a proposal, it would definitely be to make a tank in siege mode shoot a nuke that does 99999 damage. Dodge, dodge, dodge. We get it Nina... you got nuthin'. Or don't want to. Disappointing, especially since you're a smart and articulate person. But yeah, a bit close-minded. It happens. One last chance. Here, maybe this'll help: ben·e·fi·cial
ˌbenəˈfiSH(ə)l/
adjective
favorable or advantageous; resulting in good.
All I asked was for you to clarify what you meant, and now you're being condescending for no reason. You could've just said, "I just meant the dictionary definition of beneficial, nothing specific." and we could go from there. Now you're being silly, throwing down ultimatums like "LAST CHANCE", as if I care about how many chances I have left. Also, when you say "we get it", do you mean you identify as multiple people, or what?+ Show Spoiler +Or, let me guess... wē/ pronoun pronoun: we used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together. (who else are you speaking for?) + Show Spoiler +
Wait, let me guess...
us
əs/
pronoun
pronoun: us
used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people as the object of a verb or preposition.
Hey, did you know something? Rmbr the game, "Chess"? It's a turn-based two-player strategy board game played on a chessboard, a checkered gameboard with 64 squares arranged in an eight-by-eight grid. Chess is played by millions of people worldwide, both amateurs and professionals.
Each player begins the game with 16 pieces: one king, one queen, two rooks, two knights, two bishops, and eight pawns. Each of the six piece types moves differently, with the most powerful being the queen and the least powerful the pawn. The objective is to 'checkmate' the opponent's king by placing it under an inescapable threat of capture. To this end, a player's pieces are used to attack and capture the opponent's pieces, while supporting their own. In addition to checkmate, the game can be won by voluntary resignation by the opponent, which typically occurs when too much material is lost, or if checkmate appears unavoidable. A game may also result in a draw in several ways.
(Definition stolen from Wikipedia dot org)
As it turns out, Chess is fucking imbalanced:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess
You wanna know why I wouldn't change Chess? Because I'd take it for what it is. The same applies to my approach to StarCraft: Brood War. It's a great game. In my opinion, it really holds up for many, many reasons.
So, in regards to "favorable or advantageous", as gameplay changes, basically anything that benefits me personally would be beneficial. So if I played Protoss, I would advocate for anything from unnoticeable and nigh-on worthless buffs to unreasonable game-breaking advantages.
In regards to "resulting in good", the game is already good, so any change I made could potentially result in more good, but, the act of making zero changes would also result in good, so the easiest course of action would be to make no changes. My personal preference would also be to make no changes. You could say "OH, YOU'RE SO CLOSE-MINDED. DON'T WORRY. IT HAPPENS." but that means absolutely nothing, because you yourself would also be close-minded for not accepting that the game is fine as it is, and refusing to believe that no changes are necessary.
Here has been the conversation so far:
Me: Name one good idea from this thread, concerning balance.
You: I'm sure if I did, you would pooh-pooh it/pick it apart. ["No."]
Me: So you're saying that ideas might be criticized by me? That's... horrifying. ["A good idea will be able to survive my criticism."]
You: Rather than going down that very obvious path, let's instead ask YOU, Nina, if there are any balance changes you can think of that would be beneficial.
Why would I ever do this? The only thing I can think of is that you thought that I was saying that I had better ideas than everyone else in this thread to change the game's balance. Which I wasn't saying. I was saying the balance ideas in this thread are bad because there's nothing that needs to be changed in the game, period, and either you don't realize that's what I've been saying, or you did realize it but are too stubborn to admit you made a mistake.
At this point, I'm like "What are you even talking about?", "Why would I make a balance proposal if I'm against that?", "What do you mean by 'balance changes you can think of that would be beneficial'?"
So I asked one of the questions, just curious to see where you were going with this:
Me: "It depends on what you mean by "beneficial"."
You: "YOU go ahead and define beneficial any way you like, within reason."
Me: "I'm not the one making any balance proposals." [If you thought I had my own balance proposal in mind, at this point, you should know that's not the case.]
You: "Dodge, dodge, dodge. We get it Nina... you got nuthin'. Or don't want to. "
I would make no changes to the performance of any units or buildings. Which I've already stated. Numerous times. So, no, I'm not going to come up with a balance change, and for you to ask me to do so is either a misunderstanding on your end, or one of the strangest exercises in logic I've ever encountered, - OR - (and I seriously hope this is not the case) you're trying to bait me into making a proposal (why would I do this? WHY?) so you can peck at it and go, "SEE? YOU CAN POKE HOLES IN ANY ARGUMENT ABOUT UNIT BALANCE."
|
This makes the assumption that a D level Terran will find it equally easy to block the third as an A level Terran against Zerg. 95% of the time, a better player will win even with these imbalances. You might lose 5% of the time sure, but that's not a big problem when you can simply practice for an hour every day for a week and then beat the other guy. It's the tip top where everyone's at their best where the real problem lies..
Only a fool would make that assumption. The statistics are just that statistics. One particular mu might be more vulnerable with specific strats from specific races or it can perhaps only be vulnerable against certain strategies while against other strategies its a balance mu.
So if the statistic says 55/45, then it dont tell us what strategy the race loses to or how so if we then see a game where terran blocks or tries to block the third from zerg we dont know if this is the time the mu is vulnerable or not, not with statistics.
Aight. Why bother looking at statistics in the first place for anything? Statistics are clearly bull. Let's throw out the whole notion in everything.
Analysis into gameplay is fine if we're discussing individual players or a certain series. That makes sense. Once you get into a large sample size, statistics becomes more relevant.
Its there to give hints and some fast information. Even if it becomes more relevnat the more games, the context should always be worth more than statistics, and looking at stastistics alone feels very wrong to me.
Aight. Let's say Zerg loses 200 games out of 1000 because he makes a mistake. Do you know what that tells me? It's too easy to make a mistake for Zerg. If Zerg has a 1 second timing window to make sunks and be safe, and he screws up 100 times out of 1000, that's a problem.
That would tell me the same but this example feels very misleading.
Its a difference between not micro your muta/lings well enough to 1second timing window.
And lets say this example is real in broodwar right now, what should one do? Looking at statistics and do balance based on it would still be wrong, analyse the mu the race much further would be the correct move.
|
On January 28 2017 11:03 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 08:41 [[Starlight]] wrote:On January 28 2017 08:36 ninazerg wrote:On January 28 2017 08:06 [[Starlight]] wrote:On January 27 2017 11:10 ninazerg wrote:On January 27 2017 07:08 [[Starlight]] wrote:3- The person who offers earnest but obviously bad, game-breaking balance ideas, such as, well... name one. Bad, not well-thought out balance suggestions are everywhere. 4- The guy who might actually have good balance ideas but thinks his ideas are the ONLY good ones, and argues in an angry, non-constructive way with everyone else until they (he hopes) roll over and accept him as the second coming of Rob Pardo or whoever. So, you can get why some ppl hate balance discussions so much. But, they are still interesting, and some ppl do have good ideas... that will likely never be implemented.
Name one good idea from this thread, concerning balance.
I'm sure if I did, you would pooh-pooh it/pick it apart. So you're saying that ideas might be criticized by me? That's... horrifying. Well, silly sarcasm aside Nina... constructive criticism is always a good thing, and I'm pretty accepting of it. But there's constructive criticism, and then there's 'I just want to shoot down everything you say because I've already made up mind' criticism, which isn't really useful. And I suspect that's where you're going with this, not just by your tone (sarcastic), but also by your answer below... Rather than going down that very obvious path, let's instead ask YOU, Nina, if there are any balance changes you can think of that would be beneficial. I'm guessing the answer will probably be "no"... even though in other threads, I do remember you saying "nerf tanks." But you might've been joking, I don't know.
It depends on what you mean by "beneficial". The game is fun. If it wasn't fun, I'm not sure what patch I could do to fix that.
...where you seemed to dodge a pretty straightforward question on the basis of semantics. Kinda reminded me a bit of Bill Clinton during that infamous deposition, where he asked what the meaning of "is", is... Tell you what, Nina... YOU go ahead and define beneficial any way you like, within reason. That dispensed with, the question remains, "Can you think of ANY balance change, any change at ALL, that you would deem beneficial or positive to BW?". We'll wait. I'm not the one making any balance proposals. You're the one who, apparently, has the ideas to fix Brood War. Why would the impetus ever be on me to think up a balance change when you're the person who is making the proposal? Furthermore, I specifically asked what you meant by "beneficial", and you went to the most extreme example of lawyering with the 'is is' example. You asked a vague question, and I asked you to be more specific, and now you've refused to do so, and somehow are pointing at me and saying, "You're dodging the question." Also, if I gonna put forward a proposal, it would definitely be to make a tank in siege mode shoot a nuke that does 99999 damage. Dodge, dodge, dodge. We get it Nina... you got nuthin'. Or don't want to. Disappointing, especially since you're a smart and articulate person. But yeah, a bit close-minded. It happens. One last chance. Here, maybe this'll help: ben·e·fi·cial
ˌbenəˈfiSH(ə)l/
adjective
favorable or advantageous; resulting in good. Hey, did you know something? Rmbr the game, "Chess"? It's a turn-based two-player strategy board game played on a chessboard, a checkered gameboard with 64 squares arranged in an eight-by-eight grid. Chess is played by millions of people worldwide, both amateurs and professionals. Each player begins the game with 16 pieces: one king, one queen, two rooks, two knights, two bishops, and eight pawns. Each of the six piece types moves differently, with the most powerful being the queen and the least powerful the pawn. The objective is to 'checkmate' the opponent's king by placing it under an inescapable threat of capture. To this end, a player's pieces are used to attack and capture the opponent's pieces, while supporting their own. In addition to checkmate, the game can be won by voluntary resignation by the opponent, which typically occurs when too much material is lost, or if checkmate appears unavoidable. A game may also result in a draw in several ways. (Definition stolen from Wikipedia dot org) As it turns out, Chess is fucking imbalanced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chessYou wanna know why I wouldn't change Chess? Because I'd take it for what it is. The same applies to my approach to StarCraft: Brood War. It's a great game. In my opinion, it really holds up for many, many reasons. So, in regards to "favorable or advantageous", as gameplay changes, basically anything that benefits me personally would be beneficial. So if I played Protoss, I would advocate for anything from unnoticeable and nigh-on worthless buffs to unreasonable game-breaking advantages. In regards to "resulting in good", the game is already good, so any change I made could potentially result in more good, but, the act of making zero changes would also result in good, so the easiest course of action would be to make no changes. My personal preference would also be to make no changes. You could say "OH, YOU'RE SO CLOSE-MINDED. DON'T WORRY. IT HAPPENS." but that means absolutely nothing, because you yourself would also be close-minded for not accepting that the game is fine as it is, and refusing to believe that no changes are necessary.
Don't agree with everything that Starlight is saying but let me note. A lot of people point out Chess as an example of a game having imbalance and still being good. Chess is an amazing game with centuries of development and competition. You know what they don't have in Chess? Players only playing 1 color.
Let me point out another similar (in terms of cultural position) board game. Go (Or Weiqi/Baduk). Go is similar in that it is turn based and one color out of two goes first. There is an imbalance there, but what Go does is give a point advantage to White to balance things out (White goes second in Go). This is done in spite of the fact that players will alternate colors every game within a match. In fact, players and affiliated organizations are still trying to find the ideal point advantage to give. A lot of people are looking to new AI developments with Alphago to see if they can find the ideal point advantage to make the game more balanced.
Chess is great. I can also guarantee you that if you had to choose black or white at the beginning of your career and you could never play any other color, it would not be a competitive game.
Sure, Go is great as it is. It's an amazing game with so much depth and complexity that I would never be able to learn it all if I studied it my whole life. But they also are actively seeking to improve its balance to make it better. I would imagine that if Chess had a comparable system of equalizing advantages without crazily altering the rules of the game, they would implement it.
I can't say your opinion is wrong for not making any changes, but it seems non-progressive to just say that everything's fine as is and not try to improve it. There are clearly ways that the game would be more balanced in ways that would not hugely affect the game. It seems illogical to me to not want to try and find it.
On January 28 2017 11:06 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +This makes the assumption that a D level Terran will find it equally easy to block the third as an A level Terran against Zerg. 95% of the time, a better player will win even with these imbalances. You might lose 5% of the time sure, but that's not a big problem when you can simply practice for an hour every day for a week and then beat the other guy. It's the tip top where everyone's at their best where the real problem lies.. Only a fool would make that assumption. The statistics are just that statistics. One particular mu might be more vulnerable with specific strats from specific races or it can perhaps only be vulnerable against certain strategies while against other strategies its a balance mu. So if the statistic says 55/45, then it dont tell us what strategy the race loses to or how so if we then see a game where terran blocks or tries to block the third from zerg we dont know if this is the time the mu is vulnerable or not, not with statistics. Show nested quote +Aight. Why bother looking at statistics in the first place for anything? Statistics are clearly bull. Let's throw out the whole notion in everything.
Analysis into gameplay is fine if we're discussing individual players or a certain series. That makes sense. Once you get into a large sample size, statistics becomes more relevant. Its there to give hints and some fast information. Even if it becomes more relevnat the more games, the context should always be worth more than statistics, and looking at stastistics alone feels very wrong to me. Show nested quote +Aight. Let's say Zerg loses 200 games out of 1000 because he makes a mistake. Do you know what that tells me? It's too easy to make a mistake for Zerg. If Zerg has a 1 second timing window to make sunks and be safe, and he screws up 100 times out of 1000, that's a problem. That would tell me the same but this example feels very misleading. Its a difference between not micro your muta/lings well enough to 1second timing window. And lets say this example is real in broodwar right now, what should one do? Looking at statistics and do balance based on it would still be wrong, analyse the mu the race much further would be the correct move.
I honestly don't think I understand what you're saying right now. If this is real right now in Brood War (and I think it is), my opinion would be to make balance changes (assuming I'm all-powerful or something).
At what point in your analysis would you say that something is imbalanced and would have to change?
|
On January 28 2017 09:35 neobowman wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 16:16 ninazerg wrote:On January 27 2017 15:51 parkufarku wrote:On January 27 2017 01:56 biryusky wrote:
god damn when is this ever gonna stop. Blizzard hasnt touched jack shit about balance since like 10 years ago. Why are we even speculating or suggesting things that dont go anywhere? Because the title of thread says "SC1 is getting patched soon" ??? Are you afraid that Blizzard will finally deservedly nerf Terran and balance ZvT? Oh no, a balanced game incoming, that sounds horrid! Terran doesn't need to be nerfed. The problem with Zergs playing ZvT is that they all do the same build, and do it every game like a robot. It's the match-up that has changed the least in the last 5 years. This quote bothers me. The answer to everything is not "Innovate!" Yes, innovations can come and change matchups but we can't just criticize an entire race because they have not found good alternatives. Lurker builds were popular for a while because mutas weren't working against 5 rax. Sure, they were better. Still not a good solution. What's the problem with ZvP then? Protosses clearly just aren't innovating enough. Let's assume that these players that are literally being paid to play games (Afreeca still supports them through their gaming and they still spend way more time on improving than anyone else) just haven't figured things out enough.
It was a strange statement to make after the recent flash v jaedong series where flash just did +1 5 rax every game and jaedong threw pretty much everything at him, winning one game with a freaking hydralisk rush.
|
On January 28 2017 12:50 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 09:35 neobowman wrote:On January 27 2017 16:16 ninazerg wrote:On January 27 2017 15:51 parkufarku wrote:On January 27 2017 01:56 biryusky wrote:
god damn when is this ever gonna stop. Blizzard hasnt touched jack shit about balance since like 10 years ago. Why are we even speculating or suggesting things that dont go anywhere? Because the title of thread says "SC1 is getting patched soon" ??? Are you afraid that Blizzard will finally deservedly nerf Terran and balance ZvT? Oh no, a balanced game incoming, that sounds horrid! Terran doesn't need to be nerfed. The problem with Zergs playing ZvT is that they all do the same build, and do it every game like a robot. It's the match-up that has changed the least in the last 5 years. This quote bothers me. The answer to everything is not "Innovate!" Yes, innovations can come and change matchups but we can't just criticize an entire race because they have not found good alternatives. Lurker builds were popular for a while because mutas weren't working against 5 rax. Sure, they were better. Still not a good solution. What's the problem with ZvP then? Protosses clearly just aren't innovating enough. Let's assume that these players that are literally being paid to play games (Afreeca still supports them through their gaming and they still spend way more time on improving than anyone else) just haven't figured things out enough. It was a strange statement to make after the recent flash v jaedong series where flash just did +1 5 rax every game and jaedong threw pretty much everything at him, winning one game with a freaking hydralisk rush.
Edit: NVM I completely misunderstood u I'm dumb.
|
On January 28 2017 13:00 neobowman wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 12:50 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On January 28 2017 09:35 neobowman wrote:On January 27 2017 16:16 ninazerg wrote:On January 27 2017 15:51 parkufarku wrote:On January 27 2017 01:56 biryusky wrote:
god damn when is this ever gonna stop. Blizzard hasnt touched jack shit about balance since like 10 years ago. Why are we even speculating or suggesting things that dont go anywhere? Because the title of thread says "SC1 is getting patched soon" ??? Are you afraid that Blizzard will finally deservedly nerf Terran and balance ZvT? Oh no, a balanced game incoming, that sounds horrid! Terran doesn't need to be nerfed. The problem with Zergs playing ZvT is that they all do the same build, and do it every game like a robot. It's the match-up that has changed the least in the last 5 years. This quote bothers me. The answer to everything is not "Innovate!" Yes, innovations can come and change matchups but we can't just criticize an entire race because they have not found good alternatives. Lurker builds were popular for a while because mutas weren't working against 5 rax. Sure, they were better. Still not a good solution. What's the problem with ZvP then? Protosses clearly just aren't innovating enough. Let's assume that these players that are literally being paid to play games (Afreeca still supports them through their gaming and they still spend way more time on improving than anyone else) just haven't figured things out enough. It was a strange statement to make after the recent flash v jaedong series where flash just did +1 5 rax every game and jaedong threw pretty much everything at him, winning one game with a freaking hydralisk rush. Nina is talking about making a new standard for a matchup. Like how Bisu redefined PvZ for a bit, how Savior changed ZvT and how TvZ late mech has become dominant. What Flash did basically every game was 5 rax +1. Jaedong can't do that Hydra rush every game. 5 rax +1 was an innovation in that it became the new standard. Standard for Zerg is 3 hatch muta. What Jaedong did (the slow lurker drop and the hydra busts) are cool 1-off strats but nothing more. There's no chance that it'll become the new standard or anything like it. People aren't stagnating into 3 hatch muta because they aren't trying to innovate. They're stagnating because their attempts failed and are failing. I understand if one race can play more or less completely rigid and other races have to play more creatively. But there has to be some sort of standard for everyone where a race can play a matchup and not be straight up behind if both just play standard.
No, I'm talking about Zergs doing more builds in ZvT besides 3-Hatch Muta. Jaedong did not just win one game during the series. He also won the lurker-drop game. He almost won the lurker bust game.
Edit: Bisu still is winning bigly against Zerg. Why? He's aggressive and controls the skies well with corsairs. Nearly every other Protoss plays safe and doesn't take chances with aggression in the early game like Bisu does.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On January 28 2017 13:09 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 13:00 neobowman wrote:On January 28 2017 12:50 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On January 28 2017 09:35 neobowman wrote:On January 27 2017 16:16 ninazerg wrote:On January 27 2017 15:51 parkufarku wrote:On January 27 2017 01:56 biryusky wrote:
god damn when is this ever gonna stop. Blizzard hasnt touched jack shit about balance since like 10 years ago. Why are we even speculating or suggesting things that dont go anywhere? Because the title of thread says "SC1 is getting patched soon" ??? Are you afraid that Blizzard will finally deservedly nerf Terran and balance ZvT? Oh no, a balanced game incoming, that sounds horrid! Terran doesn't need to be nerfed. The problem with Zergs playing ZvT is that they all do the same build, and do it every game like a robot. It's the match-up that has changed the least in the last 5 years. This quote bothers me. The answer to everything is not "Innovate!" Yes, innovations can come and change matchups but we can't just criticize an entire race because they have not found good alternatives. Lurker builds were popular for a while because mutas weren't working against 5 rax. Sure, they were better. Still not a good solution. What's the problem with ZvP then? Protosses clearly just aren't innovating enough. Let's assume that these players that are literally being paid to play games (Afreeca still supports them through their gaming and they still spend way more time on improving than anyone else) just haven't figured things out enough. It was a strange statement to make after the recent flash v jaedong series where flash just did +1 5 rax every game and jaedong threw pretty much everything at him, winning one game with a freaking hydralisk rush. Nina is talking about making a new standard for a matchup. Like how Bisu redefined PvZ for a bit, how Savior changed ZvT and how TvZ late mech has become dominant. What Flash did basically every game was 5 rax +1. Jaedong can't do that Hydra rush every game. 5 rax +1 was an innovation in that it became the new standard. Standard for Zerg is 3 hatch muta. What Jaedong did (the slow lurker drop and the hydra busts) are cool 1-off strats but nothing more. There's no chance that it'll become the new standard or anything like it. People aren't stagnating into 3 hatch muta because they aren't trying to innovate. They're stagnating because their attempts failed and are failing. I understand if one race can play more or less completely rigid and other races have to play more creatively. But there has to be some sort of standard for everyone where a race can play a matchup and not be straight up behind if both just play standard. No, I'm talking about Zergs doing more builds in ZvT besides 3-Hatch Muta. Jaedong did not just win one game during the series. He also won the lurker-drop game. He almost won the lurker bust game. Edit: Bisu still is winning bigly against Zerg. Why? He's aggressive and controls the skies well with corsairs. Nearly every other Protoss plays safe and doesn't take chances with aggression in the early game like Bisu does.
Gotta agree with this. I think Zergs should try different builds and see what gives them the best outcome. It's good usually to stick to something you are familiar with but its like Stork mentioned in his interview, strategies rotate in and out each year so a strat from years ago might be much more effective now. What's there to lose after all?
|
On January 28 2017 13:22 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 13:09 ninazerg wrote:On January 28 2017 13:00 neobowman wrote:On January 28 2017 12:50 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On January 28 2017 09:35 neobowman wrote:On January 27 2017 16:16 ninazerg wrote:On January 27 2017 15:51 parkufarku wrote:On January 27 2017 01:56 biryusky wrote:
god damn when is this ever gonna stop. Blizzard hasnt touched jack shit about balance since like 10 years ago. Why are we even speculating or suggesting things that dont go anywhere? Because the title of thread says "SC1 is getting patched soon" ??? Are you afraid that Blizzard will finally deservedly nerf Terran and balance ZvT? Oh no, a balanced game incoming, that sounds horrid! Terran doesn't need to be nerfed. The problem with Zergs playing ZvT is that they all do the same build, and do it every game like a robot. It's the match-up that has changed the least in the last 5 years. This quote bothers me. The answer to everything is not "Innovate!" Yes, innovations can come and change matchups but we can't just criticize an entire race because they have not found good alternatives. Lurker builds were popular for a while because mutas weren't working against 5 rax. Sure, they were better. Still not a good solution. What's the problem with ZvP then? Protosses clearly just aren't innovating enough. Let's assume that these players that are literally being paid to play games (Afreeca still supports them through their gaming and they still spend way more time on improving than anyone else) just haven't figured things out enough. It was a strange statement to make after the recent flash v jaedong series where flash just did +1 5 rax every game and jaedong threw pretty much everything at him, winning one game with a freaking hydralisk rush. Nina is talking about making a new standard for a matchup. Like how Bisu redefined PvZ for a bit, how Savior changed ZvT and how TvZ late mech has become dominant. What Flash did basically every game was 5 rax +1. Jaedong can't do that Hydra rush every game. 5 rax +1 was an innovation in that it became the new standard. Standard for Zerg is 3 hatch muta. What Jaedong did (the slow lurker drop and the hydra busts) are cool 1-off strats but nothing more. There's no chance that it'll become the new standard or anything like it. People aren't stagnating into 3 hatch muta because they aren't trying to innovate. They're stagnating because their attempts failed and are failing. I understand if one race can play more or less completely rigid and other races have to play more creatively. But there has to be some sort of standard for everyone where a race can play a matchup and not be straight up behind if both just play standard. No, I'm talking about Zergs doing more builds in ZvT besides 3-Hatch Muta. Jaedong did not just win one game during the series. He also won the lurker-drop game. He almost won the lurker bust game. Edit: Bisu still is winning bigly against Zerg. Why? He's aggressive and controls the skies well with corsairs. Nearly every other Protoss plays safe and doesn't take chances with aggression in the early game like Bisu does. Gotta agree with this. I think Zergs should try different builds and see what gives them the best outcome. It's good usually to stick to something you are familiar with but its like Stork mentioned in his interview, strategies rotate in and out each year so a strat from years ago might be much more effective now. What's there to lose after all?
Bisu wins big because he's amazing at multitasking which allows him to be more aggressive with zealots and corsairs. It's not that Protosses just have to do this and they'll win. It's that Bisu's extraordinary skill allows him to do things that other Protosses can't.
Jaedong won these games because they were basically cheese that Flash doesn't scout. I'm not saying he shouldn't do it, that's how you play a series. But there's a problem when you can't play standard because you're behind if you do.
|
Japan11285 Posts
@post above the post above: Championships and getting praised or lose awfully and getting shit on by fans.
Zergs should really bust out them 1 base lurker strats from 2000 and keep Terrans honest.
|
On January 27 2017 16:47 Highgamer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 11:08 Assault_1 wrote:On January 27 2017 10:25 Bakuryu wrote:If Blizz made a couple of these changes outlined, would you be upset? That's the essence of this question.
100% yes. when will you realize that balance patches will destroy this game? It's obvious BW balancing isn't perfect, for example nukes, scouts, infested terran are never used. There's definitely a way to improve the game further through balance changes, the problem is just it's very difficult to do. Not following the whole discussion, but this point seems odd to me. "Balance = every unit is used"... that doesn't really make sense, and that idea lead to some of the lesser balance-changes in SC2 iirc. And it would take from the current awesomeness when these said units are actually used in BW... 'improve the game further through balance changes': perfectionism is a fine thing, but it has a downside, too, it can ruin already good things... everyone who wants some minor changes has to admit that there is this danger... As much as I dislike some the losses in TvP... and blame balance-issues for it... I'd rather keep the majority of games where it's 50/50 instead of striving for 50% winrates in absolute numbers..
Yeah I agree, I'm just showing the game's design isn't perfect because there's units that are never used. They would have ideally been balanced or removed from the game, since they currently don't add anything except for fun/bm.
Anyway it's a bad idea to do any balance changes to the game itself at this point, unless maybe there's something korean pro's and the general community all agree on that should be changed.
|
On January 28 2017 14:27 Assault_1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 16:47 Highgamer wrote:On January 27 2017 11:08 Assault_1 wrote:On January 27 2017 10:25 Bakuryu wrote:If Blizz made a couple of these changes outlined, would you be upset? That's the essence of this question.
100% yes. when will you realize that balance patches will destroy this game? It's obvious BW balancing isn't perfect, for example nukes, scouts, infested terran are never used. There's definitely a way to improve the game further through balance changes, the problem is just it's very difficult to do. Not following the whole discussion, but this point seems odd to me. "Balance = every unit is used"... that doesn't really make sense, and that idea lead to some of the lesser balance-changes in SC2 iirc. And it would take from the current awesomeness when these said units are actually used in BW... 'improve the game further through balance changes': perfectionism is a fine thing, but it has a downside, too, it can ruin already good things... everyone who wants some minor changes has to admit that there is this danger... As much as I dislike some the losses in TvP... and blame balance-issues for it... I'd rather keep the majority of games where it's 50/50 instead of striving for 50% winrates in absolute numbers.. Yeah I agree, I'm just showing the game's design isn't perfect because there's units that are never used. They would have ideally been balanced or removed from the game, since they currently don't add anything except for fun/bm. Anyway it's a bad idea to do any balance changes to the game itself at this point, unless maybe there's something korean pro's and the general community all agree on that should be changed.
Man I feel like I spent a huge chunk of time arguing against this and this just comes up as an off-handed quote. Jeez
|
Realistically, I don't think they will or should change anything before SC HD comes out because it will, essentially, poison the well. If they do decide to make balance changes, I think we can all agree that SC2 is the example of how not to do that.
I think some small targeted changes might be able to improve the game, but it's also a pandora's box.
What would happen if they reverted the psi storm nerf? On the surface, I think that the only truly substantial change is that storm will kill lurkers. That could serve to help protoss vs zerg while doing little vs terran. But if that results in lurkers being gone from the meta, will it result in better balance? And even if it does, would it be worth the cost (potentially making lurkers a never seen vs protoss unit)?
It's kind of the whole butterfly effect thing.
|
On January 28 2017 13:49 neobowman wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2017 13:22 BigFan wrote:On January 28 2017 13:09 ninazerg wrote:On January 28 2017 13:00 neobowman wrote:On January 28 2017 12:50 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On January 28 2017 09:35 neobowman wrote:On January 27 2017 16:16 ninazerg wrote:On January 27 2017 15:51 parkufarku wrote:On January 27 2017 01:56 biryusky wrote:
god damn when is this ever gonna stop. Blizzard hasnt touched jack shit about balance since like 10 years ago. Why are we even speculating or suggesting things that dont go anywhere? Because the title of thread says "SC1 is getting patched soon" ??? Are you afraid that Blizzard will finally deservedly nerf Terran and balance ZvT? Oh no, a balanced game incoming, that sounds horrid! Terran doesn't need to be nerfed. The problem with Zergs playing ZvT is that they all do the same build, and do it every game like a robot. It's the match-up that has changed the least in the last 5 years. This quote bothers me. The answer to everything is not "Innovate!" Yes, innovations can come and change matchups but we can't just criticize an entire race because they have not found good alternatives. Lurker builds were popular for a while because mutas weren't working against 5 rax. Sure, they were better. Still not a good solution. What's the problem with ZvP then? Protosses clearly just aren't innovating enough. Let's assume that these players that are literally being paid to play games (Afreeca still supports them through their gaming and they still spend way more time on improving than anyone else) just haven't figured things out enough. It was a strange statement to make after the recent flash v jaedong series where flash just did +1 5 rax every game and jaedong threw pretty much everything at him, winning one game with a freaking hydralisk rush. Nina is talking about making a new standard for a matchup. Like how Bisu redefined PvZ for a bit, how Savior changed ZvT and how TvZ late mech has become dominant. What Flash did basically every game was 5 rax +1. Jaedong can't do that Hydra rush every game. 5 rax +1 was an innovation in that it became the new standard. Standard for Zerg is 3 hatch muta. What Jaedong did (the slow lurker drop and the hydra busts) are cool 1-off strats but nothing more. There's no chance that it'll become the new standard or anything like it. People aren't stagnating into 3 hatch muta because they aren't trying to innovate. They're stagnating because their attempts failed and are failing. I understand if one race can play more or less completely rigid and other races have to play more creatively. But there has to be some sort of standard for everyone where a race can play a matchup and not be straight up behind if both just play standard. No, I'm talking about Zergs doing more builds in ZvT besides 3-Hatch Muta. Jaedong did not just win one game during the series. He also won the lurker-drop game. He almost won the lurker bust game. Edit: Bisu still is winning bigly against Zerg. Why? He's aggressive and controls the skies well with corsairs. Nearly every other Protoss plays safe and doesn't take chances with aggression in the early game like Bisu does. Gotta agree with this. I think Zergs should try different builds and see what gives them the best outcome. It's good usually to stick to something you are familiar with but its like Stork mentioned in his interview, strategies rotate in and out each year so a strat from years ago might be much more effective now. What's there to lose after all? Bisu wins big because he's amazing at multitasking which allows him to be more aggressive with zealots and corsairs. It's not that Protosses just have to do this and they'll win. It's that Bisu's extraordinary skill allows him to do things that other Protosses can't. Jaedong won these games because they were basically cheese that Flash doesn't scout. I'm not saying he shouldn't do it, that's how you play a series. But there's a problem when you can't play standard because you're behind if you do.
If you were following what JD said after the games, you would know that he was already behind even before the series started, just because Flash is so much better at the moment and not because of some imbalance that you try to push down our throats.
Flash and Last are the only terrans that manage to maintain ridiculously high winrate against Zergs. But what if I tell you, that both of them have even better winrates against Protoss (at least in Oct and Dec), why don't you talk about balance changes to TvP to give a chance for protoss players to win against God and Alpha Terran? It's not the races that are imbalanced, it's the players
And since you love statistics, I am curious - how would statictics look if you take out all the star players? What are the statistics for A class players only? I think you might get close to your desired 50/50 numbers. I might be wrong, but that would be really cool to look at
I also might sound close-minded and non-progressive, but really, no changes are needed for this masterpiece.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
