|
I think the problem might be more exarcebated by the league-division-ranking systems at the moment. It really depends on what statistics they rely on the most in order to make the larger-scaled content changes?
For example, having ranking divisions in beta allows Blizzard to monitor the effects of a patch change amongst the most elite players. What happens in lower divisions shouldn't have an effect on their decisions (because the gameplay and strategies utilised are optimally efficient at the highest ranking levels, and use of the changed content introduced by the patch wouldn't be used as effectively or be as 'fleshed out' as within the lower divisions). (Although, it would be interesting to find out whether the lower division statistics do in fact have an effect at all on Blizzard patch decisions and why).
The problem comes from whatever win-loss thresholds (by percentage) Blizzard might be using in the upper divisions to reach conclusions about the effect of a patch on game balance.
For example, if a patch is introduced, and then suddenly in the 'platinum' division (that's the highest ranking division, right?) there is a move from a 10% win rate by zerg players to 80%, then they'll believe that the patch introduced even more imbalance. But if the win rate only increased to 55%, they might consider the patch a success. Obviously, not every race will be able to adopt an equal win-loss rate exactly (of 33.3%). But a threshold win-loss rate (for e.g. from 20% to 40%) would be a pragmatic approach for evaluating the effect of patches on game balance.
But what happens when players encounter a negative patch change on their favourite race? They switch over! Some would. This obviously distorts the statistical rate of win-lose that races generate. So you have to assume players dont play static in terms of race choice. Also, are the periods in between patch changes enough to allow the long-term win-loss rate to eventuate? Remember, some strategies that seem OP now, might seem only a minor annoyance in the future.
...My head hurts from thinking too much. Someone else can finish off whatever I was trying to say. =)
NOTE: I don't actually have access to SC2 at all. LET THE FLAME WARS BEGIN RAWRR!!!
|
|
|
Great article. I think it's important to remember how long Brood War was out, and how short of a time the Beta has been available. I like SC2 because I think it has wonderful potential. I think we're to the point where we haven't even scratched the surface of the of using units tactically.
|
On April 21 2010 02:08 Chill wrote:
Agree with the article, vehemently disagree with the forcefield conclusion.
It kind of goes against all the things he said before that doesn't it.
At first I agreed with him but that's because I'm not objective and I'm annoyed at the ZvP losses I've had, this is exactly the kind of specialised spell that people need to battle longer to be able to judge that it needs to be nerfed.
Overall still a very good article.
|
This is exactly what i think. I totaly agree with this article
|
hmm, intresting though i do not fully agree
lurkers under darkswarm
1.) Have the defiler out, actually the hardest thing to achieve in ZvT
2.) create hydras and morph them into lurkers
3.) consume really small zerglings (hard to click on them, especially if they move)
4.) move forward with your troops
5.) cast darkswarm
6.) burrow the lurkers
+defilers are slower than the rest of your army, and could be sniped with irradiate
And the Terran could pull his army back
Versus
Force-field
1.) have the sentrys out (1.5 tier units)
2.) when the clash happens, select your army, press a-click, throw down 5-6 forcefields with smart casting
The Zerg cannot really retreat if you done it well.
Darkswarm was expensive, and hard to use, forcefields are cheap and very easy to use. You could run trough a darkswarm if it wasnt placed correctly or the units werent in place.
Forcefield is OP.
The problem with Marauders is that Blizzard did not nerf them, they fixed the stupid imbalanced rush in TvP. A cheap upgrade does not set the marauder back. mass-Marauders with heal arent countered by any Zerg unit but Mutas and having 1 (one) Thor and maybe a couple marines shuts down more than enough Mutas. Hydras melt because of their low hp, roaches are countered by them, lings cannot surround a big ball of marauders, banelings dont do enough dmg. Infestors are cool but with enough dropships the effectiveness falls hard.
But i agree with the idea, having really powerful units does good for the game. Like reapers can shitrape your entire economy or cancel your spire and whatnot, yet they arent OP, etc..
|
Great article but the force field comment detracts from an otherwise well organized post (regardless if force field should be changed or not)
|
good article. Hopefully more people will realize these very good ideas!
|
I totally support this article. I participated in many beta tests of RTS games, and often I tried to make a topic along the lines "Please don't nerf". The beauty in SC:BW balance happened because overpowered units and abilities somehow appeared to be balanced.
Many players and developers fail to realize that if you nerf everything too much, the game becomes bland and all units start to look alike. I see this very dangerous trend in SC2 balance patches and it is very sad. For example, Roaches almost went from a strong tank that can also harras or surprise to a hydra that shoots only ground. Mothership was fantastic in it's second version, and it went to slow arbiter (yes, it was OP, but I'd prefer another solution to this issue).
|
Very nice article, pretty interessing.
Good job on that.
|
Good article. I look forward for zerg getting buffed ;] and the other changes aswell
|
Good article, it's something I look forward to every week, but this was wasn't up to par to the others. I completely agree with most of your article about how screaming IMBA may end up ruining the game as units become weaker and less and less interesting, but your conclusion completely contradicts the rest of your article. That alone makes me question the article as a whole. 
Also I feel that there's a big difference between types of IMBA. Some are fun to watch as with the defiler's dark swarm and HT's psi storm, but their are others than are just plain boring. Armies that take very little skill to build and comprise of only a limited number of units that can counter a variety of tactics is IMBA and also frankly stupid as hell. That's a completely different beast than defiler IMBA which is rewarding because it's not only hard to master, but also much more situational. With the later case of IMBA, the IMBA is a good thing that adds depth the game while the former case of IMBA does the opposite.
Blizzard needs to promote game depth with situational IMBA that rewards skill, chance (is good for competitive games as mentioned in your previous article), and planning, but at the same time discourage one unit army compositions that ruin the game. That's what I think and that's also what I felt your article was directed at, but your conclusion feels like an afterthought that's just out of place.
|
Yes I agree with the article. One of my friends used to say when I played against him, that he thought psyonic storm was OP. I could not really make any arguments against that other that it could be hard to micro your templars and place the storm correctly. But psyonic storm was somewhat op, I had to agree with him.
As Triscuit says, the game is just in beta, so I do not expect a balanced game.
|
probably your best article to date.
but we must avoid balancing SC2 by making everything suck equally hard.
This quote resonated the best with me. I think blizzard has been VERY good about making games where every race or in the case of diablo 2 and WoW every class had some defining atributes that made them OP in the right hands or as you said in the right situation. I hope they keep their trend and allow some units or unit combinations to be very strong at certain stages of the game so long as they are not unstoppable.
I also agreed with the forcefield issue you said. I play random and some of the games I've had in PvZ I can't help but laugh how bad the forcefield shits on them. Pushing units away and blocking ramps while I kill their base. Endless FF FTW. Hope there is some dynamic other than not letting them get to your ramp such as the one you suggested by adding hp bar gets implamented. By giving them HP bars they are still very useful.
|
|
|
Interesting article.
I'd also like to mention that the gaming industry is vastly different from what it was 12 years ago.
There's so much more money that goes into developing and marketing games now. Without a steady revenue stream for SC2, I doubt we'll get the same type of post release support we did with SC1.
As much as I'm looking forward to SC2, I'd be super surprised to see it last half as long as SC1 in terms of a competitive esport game.
|
On April 21 2010 01:05 mcneebs wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2010 23:59 Rabiator wrote:Great writeup, but I think you forgot two things: Map size and "damage density". Many of the current (or even pre-patch-X) problems with certain units are a direct consequence of the size of the maps. Marauder rushes pre Patch 8 would probably not have such huge success on a larger map, because the defender has more time to prepare and consequently more troops. The same might be true for Immortals if you walk them over to the opponents base. Some mechanics will affect the gameplay severely on a larger map and the biggest "offender" here is probably Warp Gate. In itself it might not be such a problem, but because the cooldown can be Chrono boosted it seems "too flexible". Another thing is the Nydus network, which only needs sight to connect to its target location. You will not be able to cover all your base in the few seconds it needs to spawn and move troops over there to kill it. These two "distance does not matter for deployment" mechanics are extremely flexible and might make the whole game unstable on larger maps. We will have to wait and see what happens after the content patch this month though. One comparison between SC2 and BW is obvious: Unit movement allows for "tight ball formations" and I dont think that is a good thing, because it means you cant defend a large open spaces. Psi Storm and EMP already had their radius reduced and this favors the tight ball even more; that was a mistake IMO. Due to this "high damage density" defensive structures and any building usually fall in a matter of seconds and hardly seem worth the effort. This is another big concern I have atm, which does not have anything to do with the actual units themselves. On April 20 2010 23:30 mcneebs wrote:
I still don't know why so many new players feel that they know how to balance a game better than those who have been designing them for the past 15 years. Sometimes "you've got to be one to know one" is true and sometimes the opposite works better. With constant immersion in the game designing the Blizzard employees arent really objective enough to judge things in a good light. They have already acknowledged that players came up with a lot more creative strategies than they themselves thought possible. So "trusting your government to do it right" is bad in this case and the people need to have a voice in the decision making. My post was aimed at players new to the game. Experts (read A level players) can obviously exploit potential holes better than blizzard, but I see so many >200 post users claiming that "x" is imbalanced that it makes me want to cry.
So you are saying that a newbie with just common sense cant find potential problems (like being able to warp in loads of units anywhere in an instant or deploy them even without needing creep first) as I mentioned? Common sense also dictates that balancing Starcraft is much more complex than simply comparing the stats of units with each other. The prime example here is the Sentry, which can multiply the damage potential of other units (most importantly the Immortal) by protecting them against harm. As a Tier 1.5 unit it is really really powerful.
Sadly most people ignore any synergies and simply look at the stats of one single unit. The Infestor and its awesome Fungal Growth is such a unti: totally ignored by 95+% of Zerg players? You are capable of doing what Marauders and Sentries can do in one spell and both these units get "flamed for". Fungal Growth allows you to influence the opponent and to form a concave around the enemy OR to run away while the enemy takes damage. So Fungal Growth + some Roaches beat a bigger number of Roaches.
The sad truth in all these claims is that you have to read everything and judge for yourself. Even "top posters" can post incorrect stuff, but newbies could find a golden nugget or really IMBA combo too. The whole concept of balance can not be separated from the playing style of the players. It is a fluid and ongoing thing.
Also: What seems balanced for "Platinum players" might be imbalanced for Copper ... and the game should be fun for all types. A good example here is the "hot topic" of the Immortal push vs. Terran. If some top players figure out one build to do their fast expanding, but it requires so much precision in its execution that it isnt doable for Copper league Terrans it may be a problem if the Immortal aggression build is easier to master. Everyones answer needs to be looked at, but the top players analyze better than the bottom ones and thus can describe problems much more precisely.
|
way to hit the nail on the head liquid drone! ive been watching these nerfs and some of the just baffle me. like i understand some units need to be nerfed but you have to find the best way to nerf.
|
Honestly, until we get some better maps (and bigger), it's hard to say what is balanced and what isn't.
|
This is a wonderful article, and I agree with it 100%.
As a long time Melee professional player, the announcement of Brawl was a huge welcome for most players. As the smash community over at smashboards got bigger and bigger, it was natural for everyone to look forwards to a sequel to a game that everyone loved and played together for long hours. All my casual friends were excited, all my high level player friends were excited, it was hard to not look forward to the release of the game.
Then it happened.
"We want to create a game that both casual players and professional players can play against each other on a closer ground" -Sakurai
Those aren't the exact words, but the same philosophy was there. The team behind Sakurai didn't want to make another high level competitive game. They just wanted to create a game that casual players can play at a decent level and have more fun. So how do we do that? Let's take out all the advanced techniques. L-canceling? Wavedashing? Shuffling? Comboability? Gone. Let's slow down the game as well. Oh, let's add tripping too so we can add more randomness too! All these moves from Melee were too good so we're gonna make them weaker! (and miraculously leave Metaknight arguably broken)
This philosophy makes no sense at all. Because there were too many techniques that were "too overpowering" for the normal player, they decided to take it out/nerf it. Just so casual players can "maybe" make the game respectable playing against a high level player? Regardless of what game you play, a casual player will never beat a professional player. I can understand making the interface easier for a casual player, but to constantly nerf units so a casual player won't go "wow! that's OP!" is the wrong approach. It really should be "dang, that unit is very powerful, but I have something that is also powerful!" Just like your darkswarm+lurker and irradiate examples.
Melee was similar in this regard where the top tier characters had a lot of very skill oriented and powerful moves, and likewise, there were lots of other characters that could compete against it (though obviously, melee is not a balance game with slightly more than half the characters not tournament viable in a respectable tournament). But Sakura took these powerful characters/moves and just dumbed it down universally so the game was arguable more balance, but for the wrong reasons. Everything couldn't combo as well, couldn't move about the stage as well, etc. Then suddenly we have a less in-depth and not as enjoyable competitive game (at least from my point of view, though MANY players express a similar view).
Units shouldn't be nerfed in SC2, rather, the weaker units should be buffed. Granted, this approach is probably more difficult to balance the game, but in the end, it produces a more rewarding game.
But the buffing should be done in an intelligent way as well. Too much of a buff can produce the unwanted super hard counters that most people don't want. This is where you get something like a metaknight in Brawl, but not as extreme.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
