|
On October 09 2021 07:03 Moopower wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2021 17:28 Magic Powers wrote:On October 07 2021 15:50 Moopower wrote:On October 07 2021 13:53 Magic Powers wrote:
If people spent as much time and energy studying and practicing [insert matchup] as they do complaining about the matchup being imbalanced, they could actually become quite a lot better in that matchup. Have you actually addressed the points or arguments or are you just making ad hominems? By your logic, unless you are the level of a progamer, you shouldn't be able to analyze any situation at all. Which means artosis or any other caster who is less skilled than a progamer doesn't have any relevant opinion to cast about. The point being is, you don't necessarily have to be as a high ranked player to notice the faults. You simply have to address the principle at play here, which is apparent, but nobody is challenging me on. Astute observation. Some form of expert insight is required for an accurate understanding of the current state of the game. In my understanding you lack expertise, and thus - since you haven't provided any other form of evidence - your ideas can be dismissed. Not necessarily. Truth is objective no matter who states it. If a Progamer says something about the game, is it right because they are a high level progamer, or is it right because it was objectively right and they happen to be closer to the truth? Sometimes it takes someone who has a fresh set of eyes of perspective, who isn't blinded by dogma or has set patterned thinking or been trained by the echo chambers of the common wisdom on TL. You can argue that I most likely don't have the truth by arguing based on credentials because yes, more often than not someone who has credentials can be right more often than not, but you're not claiming anything objective here. You're resorting to argument from authority.
You haven't provided sufficient evidence to prove your case. So no, I'm not arguing from authority. I'm arguing that you have not substantiated your claim of imbalance. The fact that you're not an expert only adds to that, and it means that you have neither sufficient evidence nor the expertise to disregard the fact that that you lack evidence.
|
Not necessarily. Truth is objective no matter who states it. If a Progamer says something about the game, is it right because they are a high level progamer, or is it right because it was objectively right and they happen to be closer to the truth?
Sometimes it takes someone who has a fresh set of eyes of perspective, who isn't blinded by dogma or has set patterned thinking or been trained by the echo chambers of the common wisdom on TL. You can argue that I most likely don't have the truth by arguing based on credentials because yes, more often than not someone who has credentials can be right more often than not, but you're not claiming anything objective here. You're resorting to argument from authority. [/QUOTE]
You haven't provided sufficient evidence to prove your case. So no, I'm not arguing from authority. I'm arguing that you have not substantiated your claim of imbalance. The fact that you're not an expert only adds to that, and it means that you have neither sufficient evidence nor the expertise to disregard the fact that that you lack evidence.[/QUOTE]
Yes your whole comment was arguing from authority. You base your argument on whether you believe I'm knowledgeable enough about the subject to have a valid opinion on. I gave you enough points for you to refute on, but you chose to ignore it and give me this comment talking about how you doubt my credibility while also denying I gave any reasons for my argument. Again, argument from authority.
|
On October 09 2021 09:37 Magic Powers wrote:
You haven't provided sufficient evidence to prove your case. So no, I'm not arguing from authority. I'm arguing that you have not substantiated your claim of imbalance. The fact that you're not an expert only adds to that, and it means that you have neither sufficient evidence nor the expertise to disregard the fact that that you lack evidence.
You have made 3 posts in this thread and none of them includes anything about Starcraft and all of them are comments about Moopower, dismissing his points (which are aplenty, some already discussed by others) without showing any evidence yourself.
It disgusts me, the elitism shown by some people on this board.
|
On October 09 2021 10:07 TMNT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2021 09:37 Magic Powers wrote:
You haven't provided sufficient evidence to prove your case. So no, I'm not arguing from authority. I'm arguing that you have not substantiated your claim of imbalance. The fact that you're not an expert only adds to that, and it means that you have neither sufficient evidence nor the expertise to disregard the fact that that you lack evidence. You have made 3 posts in this thread and none of them includes anything about Starcraft and all of them are comments about Moopower, dismissing his points (which are aplenty, some already discussed by others) without showing any evidence yourself. It disgusts me, the elitism shown by some people on this board.
He presented no evidence, so I don't need to present counter evidence.
What elitism? I'm not presuming to be better than he is. It's just that he hasn't sufficiently supported his claim of imbalance. Why should we believe that he's right? What gives his argument credibility? I'm asking for something a lot more substantive than his opinion. That's not elitism.
A fact is that the all-time PvZ winrate at the highest levels doesn't stray too far from the other two non-mirror matchups.
In the following thread we find the stats for all matchups from 2002 to 2012:
TvZ: 6549-5490 (54.40%)
ZvP: 5162-4280 (54.67%)
PvT: 4782-4317 (52.56%)
https://tl.net/forum/brood-war/324598-balance-and-bonjwas-a-statistical-analysis
All of that data is from the most competitive era of BW. Do you notice a trend? Every race has been slightly advantaged in exactly one matchup. This advantage is only significant in the long run, and it's even less noticable when you pit all three races against one another, as your win-loss ratio will likely be affected by how much you play each matchup. You're likely to approach a 50% winrate when combining all three matchups. So in terms of a fun experience for amateur players, this is about as good as it can get in a game like BW containing this much strategic asymmetry
This small deviation from 50% at the top level should in no way hurt the experience of lower/medium ranked players. And I'd argue if you want to get to the top ranks you should abandon any thoughts of imbalance right away. Otherwise if it bothers you so much, pick up a different game, like SC2, which has been patched to death, if that makes you happy.
Even most top players can't figure out the true theoretical winrate in each matchup (i.e. with optimal play from everyone). Just take the difference in expertise between Flash and Light. Light is one of the best terran players of all time, yet he exists in the long shadow of Flash. So even Light isn't all that close to figuring out the game, and who knows if Flash has ever really fully figured it out either (although he's certainly much closer than everyone else).
Meanwhile we seriously want to listen to someone who's highest rank is in the B region? Please. That's not elitism, that's just giving someone a reality check. I'm not even putting myself above OP, I'm just saying he's in way over his head.
This is why people like myself are so tired of these imbalance threads. We've seen them so many times and nothing ever comes of it. Instead, practicing and studying the game is the obvious thing to do. This is why we give that advice instead of feeding into the complaints.
|
You lack critical thinking. You're just interpreting the data based on what you've already assumed. Your conclusion is already made up that BW is as balanced as it could be, and therefore any interpretation of the data will obviously be biased towards that conclusion.
What I'm telling you is to think a little in terms of game theory which is what people are not doing. They only look at stats to tell them what to think. Stats can be useful and they can also be misleading because you should know from taking any stats class that correlation doesn't equate to causation. There are numerous factors in any given stat, so in order to isolate the variables one at a time, you need to critically think and think about what best explains the results. You'll have survivorship bias, and other biases mixed in if you don't.
It is an objective fact that in ZvP, zerg has much less risk throughout the game and often goes unpunished. From just a logical perspective, this is unbalanced no matter how you slice it or try to point to stats. Could it be that overall Protoss pros have to play better overall to compensate for this weak match up? That may be the case, but we can't know for sure, so instead of guessing with stats like you're doing and making assumptions about the pros, why don't you focus on the principles at play here? I'm not the one making assumptions here, you are with your so called "stats" approach. I'm not saying stats are useless, but you're not understanding the crux of the argument.
|
now that we have squared away that a patch is needed, what are we thinking; +100hp on cannons?
|
United States1655 Posts
I think if Zealots could hit air and got a +5 armor boost upgrade in a late game building, like the Fleet Beacon or something that could really balance the matchup.
|
On October 09 2021 13:57 CadenZie wrote:
now that we have squared away that a patch is needed, what are we thinking; +100hp on cannons?
You lack critical thinking CadenZie, it's not about numbers. It's about game theory. ZvP is fundamentally unfair, it is an objective fact - because I said so. You're not understanding the crux of the argument. Haven't you been reading?
|
|
|
you know whats actually crazy about the numbers that we shouldnt speak of; in spon games for january 2021 until now protoss has a lower winrate in pvt.
therefore i would like to propose a buff to protoss over a nerf to zerg to fix said problems, and thusly sigruns solution would be close to the money. ranged zealots.
|
On October 09 2021 09:20 Moopower wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2021 09:09 ghrur wrote:
Gotta say, I agree with TT1 on this point. If you think the game isn't balanced, chances are, you're just not good enough. The best players in the world show us again and again that you can overcome opponents by outplaying them, no matter the matchup. If you're blaming your losses on "imbalance" instead of skill, you're whining. You're talking like ZvP is so Z biased, but then... just switch to Z and prove it. If it's so imbalanced, you'd be able to climb no problem, but chances are, you'll still get destroyed by any P 200 elos above you.
Fact of the matter is ZvP, TvZ, and PvT are like chess. One side is black, one side is white. Sure, one side might be advantaged (unproven a-priori), but complaining about the advantage is senseless when you're not even good enough to exploit it. Better idea is to just get good. Gotta say what you've been saying is nothing new and contributes nothing to the discussion. It's the same old saying "Just get gud" You don't know what you're talking about. You offer no rebuttals or reasoning as to why the timings work out the way they do to ensure a fair match up. The core of the argument is since we are playing a competitive game, the game should be as fair as humanly possible. If it isn't balanced, saying it shouldn't change because of how blizzard won't or bc pros won't like it is as biased as they come. In order for a balanced game to exist, you need justifiable risks vs rewards. Each player or race option should be given enough options and opportunities to demonstrate and showcase their differences in skill, not due to race imbalances. If the margins of error for one side is too small relative to other matchups and races, then by definition it's an imbalance.
I don't think you understand. My whole point is you're too bad to say what the risk vs reward even is. Look, if you send a zealot into a 12-hatch Zerg's main, it's a completely different risk vs reward compared to if Bisu did it. You won't understand the correct risks because you don't know what a Zerg is actually capable of. You won't understand the correct reward because your micro isn't Bisu's micro. If you can't understand the risk vs reward, how can you determine balance? If you can't determine balance, how can you determine bias?
It's legit like a 1000 ELO player in chess complaining about how Ruy Lopez is broken and chess should fix the bias of Black vs White.
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES50600 Posts
this thread is going nowhere at this point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
