EPTOn Balance, Starcraft, and Philosophy - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
| ||
|
Floophead_III
United States1832 Posts
Here I'll summarize it for you: -Don't blame the game, blame the player -Don't talk about balance if you aren't a top player -Don't use statistics blindly, look for hidden variables Sweet I'm a philosophizer too! Please, if you something important to say just say it and don't waste everyone's time making them read a bunch of useless crap. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On April 26 2010 02:01 Half wrote: I think you've identified a popular misconception, then proceeded to fall right into it. Which is odd. A for effort. You're right, balance isn't the core goal, fun and competition are core goals. Balance is a means to an end. As a player, we will never be able to identify if something is balanced or not, at least not the beta. Again, You're absolutely right. However, as you stated yourself, balance is not the point. We can't identify whether or not something is imbalanced, but we as players can however, quite easily, identify if something is or is not fun. In which an argument from authority is actually quite valid, because if all the pro gamers are not finding the game fun, it means that the game will not be competitive, no matter how objectively balanced it is. Players can also objectively determine the cause for this lack of fun through analytical reason, because in many cases, it can be attributed to an core attribute of the game that is not subject to change as the metagame changes. If a player finds that the lack of terran positional play is making the game not fun, we can objectively determine that the way siege tanks are balanced are causing this. Hence a balancing issue. The thesis is now "Siege tanks are underpowered", a statement solely relating to balance, but its core contention is actually one of fun. Hence, it is a perfectly apt Its actually funny how you identify the trap and then fall into it yourself again by focusing on the word "balance" again yourself. A lone siege tank can never be balanced, because you need a counterpoint to balance it with. Even comparing its power with other units (thats just a different word for balance) doesnt work in a game as complex as Starcraft and the only thing you might attempt is to balance the whole package (by the total win/loss ratios on the ladder) ... On April 26 2010 02:01 Half wrote: Whether or not the game is fun or not for an individual is irrelevant. However, If the general consensus is that it is unfun, through an imbalance, or rather, a balance in a direction contrary to what we perceive as fun AND one can objectively link this lack of fun to a non metagame element (such as siege tanks just being statistically bad, irrelevant to the current meta) a perfectly valid statement about the balance of the game has been asserted. ... but for an individual unit you could determine if it is making the game less challenging or not fun. The prime example here is the Sentry with its Forcefield. Today I saw a game between Zerg and Protoss (ZOTAC cup finals) and the Protoss trapped the Zerg inside his main base for maybe two minutes or so by using Forcefield with nothing to be done by the Zerg except waiting for the Nydus Network to finish. I can imagine that not being much fun if you are on the receiving end and its certainly not very challenging to pull off on the side of the Protoss. Zerg won it eventually, but the tactic in itself is absolute in its effect (it totally blocks movement instead of slowing it down) and isnt counterable by the opponent and that makes me somewhat skeptical on the design of the spell. One of the better examples is the way many Terran players are complaining themselves about the overall usefulness of the Marauder compared to the other units in their arsenal. They would like a shift of power from this unit towards others and that is a totally different way of handling things than non-Protoss who complain about Immortals or non-Zerg who complain about the Roach. | ||
|
3FFA
United States3931 Posts
edit: and guys don't insult the poor kid. At least he tried to make a good post. I consider it to be a great post for one his first 8 posts. I mean how often do you see posts with this much effort put into them by new posters? | ||
|
Wintermute
United States427 Posts
On April 25 2010 05:48 Funchucks wrote: It is a stated goal of the Starcraft 2 design team to balance the game at ALL skill levels, from the first-time player to the obsessive who plays like it's his job, so this argument goes out the window. It's my stated goal to ascend to Godhood, travel back to the beginning of time and remake the universe in my own image. With that goal being out of reach at the moment, I've settled for experiencing new things as much as possible. Assuming perfect balance is possible across all tiers of skill, then that is a wonderful ending point, but between here and there, it's a good idea to start by balancing around the top tier of players and working our way down. If the game is balanced at low levels of skill but imbalanced at high levels of skill, then the game is literally most fun to play in a state of total ignorance, which is the opposite of having depth. | ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On April 26 2010 07:18 Wintermute wrote: Assuming perfect balance is possible across all tiers of skill, then that is a wonderful ending point, but between here and there, it's a good idea to start by balancing around the top tier of players and working our way down. Why do you think this would be a good idea? If you balance the top tier today, they will break it tomorrow, fix it themselves the day after, and break it again next week, but people who pick up the game tomorrow will try pretty much the same things on their first day as people who pick up the game ten years from now. If the game comes out and all the newbies are either adopting an always-zergling-rush strategy against each other or losing 90+% of their games, none of them are going to care that the zergling rush is considered weak and easily defeated by people who have spent four months playing for 18 hours a day every day. They're just going to decide that the game is broken and tell all of their friends not to bother buying a copy. Low level balance is easier to achieve, easier to recognize, more stable, and more important to get right for the release. Stable high level balance will probably not be achieved until years after both expansions are out. | ||
|
ImSkeptical
Australia51 Posts
On April 26 2010 08:11 Funchucks wrote: Why do you think this would be a good idea? If you balance the top tier today, they will break it tomorrow, fix it themselves the day after, and break it again next week, but people who pick up the game tomorrow will try pretty much the same things on their first day as people who pick up the game ten years from now. If the game comes out and all the newbies are either adopting an always-zergling-rush strategy against each other or losing 90+% of their games, none of them are going to care that the zergling rush is considered weak and easily defeated by people who have spent four months playing for 18 hours a day every day. They're just going to decide that the game is broken and tell all of their friends not to bother buying a copy. Low level balance is easier to achieve, easier to recognize, more stable, and more important to get right for the release. Stable high level balance will probably not be achieved until years after both expansions are out. So if it was the aim of someone to be top tier, they should aim to break and fix balance themself, and diregard whatever Blizzard does to please the newbies? I'm assuming you see this as, 'Blizzard balancing to please the majority to get sweet cash.' Even if this is true, which it very well may be, doesn't this make disccusing specific changes to balance even more irrelevant to players who want to make the game competetive? I agree with what you say, i'm just not sure it's entirely directed at what I was trying to say xD. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On April 26 2010 19:28 ImSkeptical wrote: So if it was the aim of someone to be top tier, they should aim to break and fix balance themself, and diregard whatever Blizzard does to please the newbies? I'm assuming you see this as, 'Blizzard balancing to please the majority to get sweet cash.' Even if this is true, which it very well may be, doesn't this make disccusing specific changes to balance even more irrelevant to players who want to make the game competetive? I agree with what you say, i'm just not sure it's entirely directed at what I was trying to say xD. I dont think he meant that. Whatever Blizzard does wont affect their revenues much (unless they totally screw up before it hits the shelves and good advertising can sell real junk anyways), because there is no subscription for Battlenet. Once you bought the game there will be no more revenue for Blizzard until the expansions are coming out. So they dont really need to please the casual players to keep their revenues up like they did with World of Warcraft. Tweaking the balance for Brood War took years until they finally got it right. I also think it will be kinda impossible to "balance" the game equally for all playing levels just because there are different levels of playing skill required for each of the races. Zerg are probably the easiest to learn and thus attractive for low-level-players, because you dont have to learn that many units and have a lot fewer buildings to keep track of. Just doing an a-move with a horde of Roaches and not microing at all might be enough to win the game. The same is true for Terran if you simply stick to Marauders. Once you start using a widely mixed Terran army of MMM, some Hellions, a Raven and some siege tanks however, you will need to much better control to be successful. The same is true for Protoss with their ton of caster units, because placing a Forcefield in a good spot needs to be learned. Thus Forcefield might be less "broken" in lower levels than it is in higher levels of play. On the other hands the experienced opponents will have learned how to deal with Forcefield eventually. IMO lower level play is not a good thing to look at for a comparison, because the players there are too erratic in their playing style/quality and might play a game which would have defeated a top level player but lose against some silly crap in the next one. I apologize for using the word balance here; it should be replaced with the term "keeping a game challenging". | ||
|
progenitor
4 Posts
 | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On April 26 2010 06:29 Rabiator wrote: Its actually funny how you identify the trap and then fall into it yourself again by focusing on the word "balance" again yourself. A lone siege tank can never be balanced, because you need a counterpoint to balance it with. Even comparing its power with other units (thats just a different word for balance) doesnt work in a game as complex as Starcraft and the only thing you might attempt is to balance the whole package (by the total win/loss ratios on the ladder) ... I never focused on the word balance, I utilized it. The post starts by claiming that balance is not the end goal, and then elaborates on the irrelevant point on how balance can never be determined in such a brief amount of time. The SC2 siege tank is weaker then the SC1 siege tank. This represents a move away from positional play. As a player, I can find positional play to be entertaining, and thus, I could posit a argument for the buffing of siege tanks despite the fact that terran are not objectively underpowered, because as you said, despite the fact that siege tanks a weak, they do not exist in a vacuum. Despite this, I can still advocate buffing siege tanks in order to shift the gameplay in a direction I find fun, a balance suggestion that does not depend on a absolute, logistical, non-meta understanding of the actual balance. ... but for an individual unit you could determine if it is making the game less challenging or not fun. The prime example here is the Sentry with its Forcefield. Today I saw a game between Zerg and Protoss (ZOTAC cup finals) and the Protoss trapped the Zerg inside his main base for maybe two minutes or so by using Forcefield with nothing to be done by the Zerg except waiting for the Nydus Network to finish. I can imagine that not being much fun if you are on the receiving end and its certainly not very challenging to pull off on the side of the Protoss. Zerg won it eventually, but the tactic in itself is absolute in its effect (it totally blocks movement instead of slowing it down) and isnt counterable by the opponent and that makes me somewhat skeptical on the design of the spell. One of the better examples is the way many Terran players are complaining themselves about the overall usefulness of the Marauder compared to the other units in their arsenal. They would like a shift of power from this unit towards others and that is a totally different way of handling things than non-Protoss who complain about Immortals or non-Zerg who complain about the Roach. I meant individual player, as in "If I'm the only guy who likes siege tanks, and nobody else does, my opinion is irrelevant". I agree with your analysis on the Sentry, but its completely irrelevant to the segment you quoted and actually supports my point o.o. In fact, it is my point in its entirety. We seem to be in agreement lols. I'm saying the same thing. I can't determine all the intrinsic ways the Sentry interacts with the game and all the complex relationships and as I result I don't truly understand the balance of the sentry or the balance of the protoss. Nobody does, there are too many variables, even blizzard doesn't, they just have a lot more experience and data to make intelligent guesses off of. However, I can determine that the force field perma blocking of ramps is just no fun at all. And thus, I can suggest a change made to balance to discourage this practice, backing it up with replays of pro games, and most people would agree that it isn't fun. Thus, I've made a legitimate contributory suggestion towards balance without truly understanding its intricacies because balance isn't the core goal, fun and dynamic play are. The OP takes the idea of "we know nothing" too far. While we can't disagree with the balance of the siege tank in relationship to balance, we can easily do so in relationship to fun, or rather, the units effect on the direction of gameplay in relationship to fun, and make a valid point out of it. | ||
rotinegg
United States1719 Posts
On April 23 2010 21:14 ImSkeptical wrote: This does not mean I want discussion on the forum to stop in relation to balance. It would just be nice if instead another mindset was taken, one focusing on what we as a player can actually do to deal with a problem. First make the assumption that the game is already balanced. Instead of “Force fields should be destructible”, I would prefer the discussion to be “Force fields are super badass. What should I do in order to be extra badass in order to beat someone who can force field good”. This kind of discussion actually gets us somewhere because we are not Blizzard. We are the players. We can’t change the game by changing the game; we change the game by playing it. We can make the game balanced by putting in the effort, the practice, and the skill. I love OP, his argument is just a waaaaaaaaaaaay better worded version of mine: On March 10 2010 13:10 rotinegg wrote: i am seeing way too many of these threads, recycling the arguments in the same few original posts OVER and OVER and OVER again. Broodlords arent end-all units, get a mother ship and vortex them or something. Figure something out so Z is forced to make them travel in open space and have them sniped. The post about how they get killed by stalkers with blink was excellent. Sitting here and complaining without having even given thought to a possible way to counter them is doing you all no good. Threads should not be generated with the purpose of saying "OMG CERTAIN UNIT IMBA CUZ I LOST TO IT!!!1!! BLIZZARD FIX IT ST4RCRAFT2 BROKEN ZOMG T_T" Instead they should be along the lines of "Hey anybody find a good way to counter Z that goes brood lords? Having a bit of trouble." If there is enough constructive discussion and there really seems no way to stop broodlords, then maybe blizzard will make a patch. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
i am seeing way too many of these threads, recycling the arguments in the same few original posts OVER and OVER and OVER again. Broodlords arent end-all units, get a mother ship and vortex them or something. Figure something out so Z is forced to make them travel in open space and have them sniped. The post about how they get killed by stalkers with blink was excellent. Sitting here and complaining without having even given thought to a possible way to counter them is doing you all no good. Threads should not be generated with the purpose of saying "OMG CERTAIN UNIT IMBA CUZ I LOST TO IT!!!1!! BLIZZARD FIX IT ST4RCRAFT2 BROKEN ZOMG T_T" Instead they should be along the lines of "Hey anybody find a good way to counter Z that goes brood lords? Having a bit of trouble." If there is enough constructive discussion and there really seems no way to stop broodlords, then maybe blizzard will make a patch. You know, this kind of illustrates what I'm talking about too. I don't agree that Broodlords are overpowered or even need to be changed, I love broodlords. However, looking at that massive broodlord thread, you'll notice that nobody good is saying Broodlords are the end all be all. That they are objectively "imbalanced". Right now, the main point of contention is that Toss need a variety of tech options requiring a economic advantage in order to counter late game mass broodlords. What they are protesting is the direction of gameplay forcing toss to secure a economy advantage somewhere in early lategame right before broodlords or they die. The validity of that statement is debatable, but the point of contention is perfectly valid and the kind of statement a player might make about balance without requiring a deep understanding of it. Maybe Toss IS balanced around securing that economic advantage, but they personally don't like that kind of gameplay style. Now I don't agree with that, but you can see how it can be a valid statement to make without requiring a really deep understanding, providing you can prove that 5-6 Broodlords require a greater economy to beat. | ||
|
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
| ||
|
rotinegg
United States1719 Posts
On April 27 2010 12:13 Half wrote: You know, this kind of illustrates what I'm talking about too. I don't agree that Broodlords are overpowered or even need to be changed, I love broodlords. However, looking at that massive broodlord thread, you'll notice that nobody good is saying Broodlords are the end all be all. That they are objectively "imbalanced". Right now, the main point of contention is that Toss need a variety of tech options requiring a economic advantage in order to counter late game mass broodlords. What they are protesting is the direction of gameplay forcing toss to secure a economy advantage somewhere in early lategame right before broodlords or they die. The validity of that statement is debatable, but the point of contention is perfectly valid and the kind of statement a player might make about balance without requiring a deep understanding of it. Maybe Toss IS balanced around securing that economic advantage, but they personally don't like that kind of gameplay style. Now I don't agree with that, but you can see how it can be a valid statement to make without requiring a really deep understanding, providing you can prove that 5-6 Broodlords require a greater economy to beat. Which I disagree with. yea my post wasn't exactly a well-thought out and logically sound one. I wrote it in response to the 4 "Broodlords Imba" threads made less than three weeks into the beta (3 of which got closed thereafter). I do agree that protoss on equal economic footing as the zerg player during late game has a hard time fending off broodlords. I also believe, however, that it is part of the Z > P > T > Z dynamic which has existed since the conception of SC1, for P players to have to secure every inch of advantage against a Z player of equal skill to win. Regardless, I don't want to make this another broodlord balance discussion thread, and I see where you are coming from, especially because it is so hard to get an early lead as P against Z in the current state of the game. | ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
TL;DR By trying out wacky play styles and different unit compositions, we will help blizzard balance the game that much faster. I mean thats why we are in the beta right to help out blizzard? | ||
|
FarbrorAbavna
Sweden4856 Posts
And teh fukk at all the ignorant and stupid people showing up and just talking down at OP about using philosophy and how that is somewhat a bad thing, who the fuck cares as long as his point is made. dont wanna read it, then dont. feeling abit down after someone used too big words for you, not anyone elses problem. | ||
|
slowmanrunning
Canada285 Posts
On April 23 2010 23:45 m0nkeyknight wrote: Great read, like you i also enjoyed the power overwhelming article, people don't seem to realize that the original Starcraft(lol 4 pool) took years to balance. Constantly calling certain things OP and then saying they need "nerfing" rather than trying to come up with some mad strat/bo to overcome it just ends up with new balance issues being made. allthough nothing countered the 4 pool so it had to be nerfed. just sayin | ||
|
Pharow
United States19 Posts
| ||
| ||
