|
On August 15 2010 20:52 Condor wrote:
This may be one of the cases where the current battlenet 2.0 system is actually a really good thing. It should be easy for Blizzard to look in their database and get some statistics such as "What is the winrate in TvZ where both players have MMR over x?" It seems quite possible to me that the answer to that question depends strongly on x. The winrate may be very different in top diamond as compared to low diamond even.
Upfront: New poster. Preferred race = Zerg (have been since BW)
Just wanted to first say that this thread is a very good starting point for highlighting issues in Zerg gameplay.
Now onto the quoted portion...
The idea to gather the secret hidden data while great in concept will still not reveal the true nature of the balance and the reason for this is that it is a self fulfilling system.
The only metric considered in the algo for determining MMR is the outcome of the individual ladder matches as well as the current MMR for each player. The system considers you roughly equivalent if your results are roughly equivalent. The key word here is "results", so the actual effort/skill/competency does not factor in at all. This would be a little better if the Protoss was equally difficult for both Terran and Zerg thus creating a kind of quasi "control" for the measurements however if you check towards the end of the "DiMaGa contemplating a move to Terran" thread you'll see that Zerg has nearly as much trouble with Protoss as they do with Terran - it just gets overshadowed by the more glaringly obvious ZvT problems.
If we examine three main scenarios.
* All races are equally balanced ie. A = B = C --> MMR is where it should be
* A < B, but A = C and B = C --> MMR can sort of be reliable using C as a control
* A < B, A < C OR A > B, A > C --> MMR is not reliable
First case is not worth discussing - it would be wonderful if it were the case.
So lets explore the second case. To simplify things, lets say that the placement matches or initial measurement of your MMR is based on 5 matches with the control race "C". Let's give them arbitrary MMRs of 100, 200, 300, 400 & 500. So player A defeats the 3 weaker C but loses to the top 2 C, player B does likewise. So they both are roughly MMR of 350 to start off with, for simplification, lets assume that the measurement is dead on accurate, in other words for subsequent games against C players with an MMR of 350, there would be a 50/50 chance of winning/losing.
We now pit A vs B (both measured to be 350 MMR) and due to the imbalance of the races, A loses to B more often than not despite same skill/ability. A will have it's MMR adjusted downwards of 350 while B will have it adjusted upwards by a similar amount while C is left at 350 since it wins 50% of the time against itself and against A or B. Assuming an even spread of players using A, B or C... this MMR will hold. Players however will tune into this imbalance and the result will be fewer players using race A. The result is then that B will have fewer opponents to "level up" against until it gets so bad that there are no longer any A players thus bringing B back to C's level. Extreme scenario I know, but just to highlight that players leaving an imbalanced race is the only saving grace in validating the MMR for scenario 2.
The third scenario(s) is(are) a complete shambles. If A is the weakest race, then despite same skill levels, A will always have an MMR lower than B or C, thus pitting players of similar MMR against one another won't necessarily be pitting players of similar skill since for A to have a similar MMR to B or C, A needs to be skilled enough to overcome the inbalance of B/C (in short, more skilled than B or C). Thus in matches with similar MMR, the win ratio should be the same. That is the whole point of the MMR, to make it so that players with the same MMR results in 50% of the matches going to either player. So you can see that if Blizzard were to show the stats for similar MMR players win ratios, it would show exactly what Blizzard wants you to believe, that it is balanced!
|
On August 15 2010 17:16 purerythem wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2010 17:04 used man wrote:
Im not going to comment on the issue right now, since im still thinking it over. But will everyone PLEASE stop calling the tanks attack "smart AI" or some other incorrect term? The AI is exactly the same. The difference is, that the tanks projectile has no travel time. In BW, the time between the tank shooting, and the blast occurring, was existent. In SC2, its instant. If it had been instant in BW, tanks would have been exactly the same as they are in SC2. Right now, im trying to find a way to add a travel time to the attack, so we could see if it actually makes a huge difference. In sc2, there is no overkill. So if one tank fires and that unit will die, the 2nd tank will automatically shoot at the next unit. Continue from there. It has nothing to do with travel time on attacks, simply there is no overkill. If you are trolling, well played.
Actually Dustin/SC2Dev confirmed that there is no smart AI for tanks not overkilling. It's just that the damage is instant so you can't have 2 tanks shooting the same target as there would be no target to shoot at since it would be dead after first shot. Whether there is smart AI in terms of spreading damage I have no idea but it _has_ been confirmed that no projectile is what causes no overkill.
|
I think 3 things will help ZvT more playable in the state its now in.
1. Thor needs to go up in the tech tree. I think the Thor is too easy to get. It should go up in the tech tree. Like building a fusion core after your armory. It forces the Terran to build turrets/marines/vikings against muta harass which makes mutas more viable and cost effective.
2. Hydra speed upgrade. I think the speed upgrade from SCBW should be implemented in SC2. Hydra's are just too slow and too creep dependant. If they are made faster they are not sitting ducks for tanks. Although hydras are fast on creep too, I think its a good solution.
3. Bring back muta micro. This needs no explanation imo.
|
On August 15 2010 22:38 heishe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2010 20:44 Nixda wrote:On August 15 2010 20:16 heishe wrote:
And it is sooooooooooooo wrong. It simply is. You can not compare mmorpg balancing with RTS balancing, it simply doesn't ever have the same effects on the different skill levels. When you ask that question ("casuals vs pros?") you imply that balancing a matchup for the pros automatically makes it harder for the casuals in that matchup, which, in RTS, is almost never (if ever) the case. I can't think of any scenario which would make it harder for the casuals if it's balanced for pro-level play, no matter how hard I think about it. Casuals do not have the APM and insane micro that pros have. If a specific early push can be defended by a pro with insane micro but a casual cannot defend against the same push, then this will lead to a disparity in win/loss ratios between pros and casuals. Just one quick example. the situation you describe implies imbalance though. If a pro has to have insane micro to defend an early game push where his opponent doesn't need just as much micro to pull it off, then it's imbalanced. and if now a patch comes out that either buffs the defender in a way that he doesn't need insane micro anymore or nerfs the attacker in a way that he needs the same insane micro, it won't make a difference for the casuals, as no casual will be able to pull off that insane early game harass / attack just like no casual would be able to defend it. Show nested quote +On August 15 2010 21:28 BillyMole wrote:On August 15 2010 20:44 Nixda wrote:On August 15 2010 20:16 heishe wrote:
And it is sooooooooooooo wrong. It simply is. You can not compare mmorpg balancing with RTS balancing, it simply doesn't ever have the same effects on the different skill levels. When you ask that question ("casuals vs pros?") you imply that balancing a matchup for the pros automatically makes it harder for the casuals in that matchup, which, in RTS, is almost never (if ever) the case. I can't think of any scenario which would make it harder for the casuals if it's balanced for pro-level play, no matter how hard I think about it. Casuals do not have the APM and insane micro that pros have. If a specific early push can be defended by a pro with insane micro but a casual cannot defend against the same push, then this will lead to a disparity in win/loss ratios between pros and casuals. Just one quick example. A good, more specific example, is that an early 1 thor/5-6 marine/2-3 hellion/3-4 scv push will destroy pretty much all low level zerg, and some high level zerg (but most certainly not all). Basically, low-level players don't have very good micro, and their battles are mostly a-moves, so it's all about unit choice. They do not have the ability to focus fire, and will not know about things like hold-position zerglings to get rid of the repairing SCVs (though in fairness, I've come to realize that most high-level players don't seem to know about this either). So a push that is not particularly difficult for me to hold of will cause many 'casuals' to cry about imbalance. There are many other examples, but you should get the idea. Most cheese falls into this category (works on low-level, won't work on anyone with skill). If you balance for all levels, that means you basically have to balance a-move armies. Which obviously will get boring really, really fast. No "casual" will be able to pull off a good timed thor/rine/hellion push, and what you desribe is just one of the many pushes which are pretty hard to defend as zerg, no matter which skill level the zerg or the terran is, and the zerg is always going to need much much much more micro/macro/scouting to defend against it than the terran is going to need to pull it off. it's an imbalanced push, thus what I'm saying is still correct.
This is exactly what I'm talking about, you're talking from your level of skill, and extrapolating that to all other levels. That push is easy to execute, and takes nothing special in terms of macro or micro. I'll concede that it might be OP in a low-level bracket, but again, you cannot balance anything across all skill levels, and I'd rather have it balanced at a high level than a low. I reject your statement that the push is imbalanced no matter the skill level of the Zerg, because I've always found it almost trivially easy to destroy, and I'm not a pro. It doesn't even take much attention or micro to do it, though it probably does take slightly more of my attention than it does the Terran's attention.
|
someone should make a compilition of the best posts about this issue and just post it where blizzard sees them. I guess they lurk here too but maybe not enough to catch all the best posts about this problem.
|
Tester 10th may:
"PvZ is pretty balanced but Terran is too strong.
Right now we don't have really good Terrans on the server.
But if actually starcraft 1 players start playing starcraft 2 beta, alot, hardcore, you will never beat terran."
|
Mutalisks need moving shot
|
Mutalisks already shoot and move almost seamlessly, you can spam click and they slide and shoot btw. They do slow down a little, but after practicing alot ive gotten it almost seamless.
|
On August 15 2010 23:04 Singu wrote:
I think 3 things will help ZvT more playable in the state its now in.
1. Thor needs to go up in the tech tree. I think the Thor is too easy to get. It should go up in the tech tree. Like building a fusion core after your armory. It forces the Terran to build turrets/marines/vikings against muta harass which makes mutas more viable and cost effective.
2. Hydra speed upgrade. I think the speed upgrade from SCBW should be implemented in SC2. Hydra's are just too slow and too creep dependant. If they are made faster they are not sitting ducks for tanks. Although hydras are fast on creep too, I think its a good solution.
3. Bring back muta micro. This needs no explanation imo.
I think #1 would work very well - it'd kinda be like vessel irradiate to stop muta harass. #2 I've suggested before, though #3 would probably not be well-received within the SCII community (though I wish there was muta micro as well).
|
On August 15 2010 23:13 GobIin wrote:
Mutalisks need moving shot
They don't need that as much as they need weaker thors and turrets.
|
maybe the thor should get an upgrade which is equal to irradiate from bw. not exactly the same spell but maybe aoe damage with an upgrade or rocket hail which needs energy!
|
In BW there was a lot of tension between both sides because either could lose their army in an instant and it was all about micromanagement of your units to win the game. It was amazing how back and fourth the ZvT matchup was because how fast games could change direction.
For example: lurkers could kill an army of medic/marine almost instantly and medic/marine could kill the lurkers could take on the lings.
Another example would be defilers could dark swarm to protect its melee units from siege tanks (they still splash but they don't do the full dmg) and marines and science vessels had to irradiate to stop defilers and any high tech units from pushing too far.
In SC2 terran can't get medics early but with the new health upgrades and marauders they are pretty hard to kill compared to BW.
Zerg also lost the dark swarm and lurker and replaced with Banelings and infestors. While they are fresh ideas and great units but they aren't nearly as devastating as their BW counter parts.
Banelings need to get in close but you still need a lot of them and a lot of zerglings to kill a terran army.
Infestors are great at slowing a terran army down but not pushing them back like the defilers were.
|
On August 15 2010 23:15 Phayze wrote:
Mutalisks already shoot and move almost seamlessly, you can spam click and they slide and shoot btw. They do slow down a little, but after practicing alot ive gotten it almost seamless.
True, its just terran has got BW equivalent of irradiate, which meant end of mutas, at factory tech, requiring no upgrades, with no energy requirements, in a unit which one shoots its supposed zerg counters...
Screw that 450 canon, I would be delighted if air splash could be swapped with canon upgrade.
|
maybe, decreasing the effectiveness of missile turrents will favouring mutas?
|
On August 15 2010 23:51 jamesltl wrote:
maybe, decreasing the effectiveness of missile turrents will favouring mutas?
Its not the turrets that are the issues, its the thors.
|
On August 15 2010 23:53 ItsTheFark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2010 23:51 jamesltl wrote:
maybe, decreasing the effectiveness of missile turrents will favouring mutas? Its not the turrets that are the issues, its the thors.
It's both
|
Something you really hear a lot is that: "Zerg can tech-switch".
That indeed is right, but it doesn't justify anything. There are 2 problems with that and i would like to address them:
1. Zerg doesn't have a huge range of different units that would need the opponent to know that they're coming in order to react properly.
2. In addition, Terran and even Protoss have figured out a unit composition that can handle absolutely everything Zerg can throw at them.
A good Terran Mech Ball consists of Hellions, Tanks, Marines and Thors. Also, they'll have Turrets at their base. Sometimes they'll ad some Vikings or Marauders later in the Game.
-Zerglings get countered by Hellion and Tanks.
-Roaches get countered by Tanks.
-Hydras get countered by Hellions, Thors and Tanks.
-Mutalisks get countered by Marines and Thors and Turrets.
-Banelings get countered by Tanks.
-Broodlords get countered by Vikings.
-Ultralisks get countered by Marauders and Tanks.
-Infestors get countered by Tanks.
They only way for Zerg to win right now is by having a much better economy, but Terran has insane Harrass abilitys with the Hellion and the Reaper (and Viking for Overlord sniping). And they're able to abuse Terrain with Tank/Thor Drops on cliffs.
|
On August 15 2010 23:56 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2010 23:53 ItsTheFark wrote:On August 15 2010 23:51 jamesltl wrote:
maybe, decreasing the effectiveness of missile turrents will favouring mutas? Its not the turrets that are the issues, its the thors. It's both
if turrents is not very effective,T will be forced to leave a couple of thors inside their base for muta harrass and T will need to micro the thor back and forth in their base whileZ can attack T army at the battlefield
|
Good post OP. But tbh, i think the truth lies somewhere inbeetween. I dont think its that imbalanced as people claim it to be, still its not very balanced. Overall good points.
|
On August 16 2010 00:02 Melt wrote:
Something you really hear a lot is that: "Zerg can tech-switch".
That indeed is right, but it doesn't justify anything. There are 2 problems with that and i would like to address them:
1. Zerg doesn't have a huge range of different units that would need the opponent to know that they're coming in order to react properly.
2. In addition, Terran and even Protoss have figured out a unit composition that can handle absolutely everything Zerg can throw at them.
A good Terran Mech Ball consists of Hellions, Tanks, Marines and Thors. Also, they'll have Turrets at their base. Sometimes they'll ad some Vikings or Marauders later in the Game.
-Zerglings get countered by Hellion and Tanks.
-Roaches get countered by Tanks.
-Hydras get countered by Hellions, Thors and Tanks.
-Mutalisks get countered by Marines and Thors and Turrets.
-Banelings get countered by Tanks.
-Broodlords get countered by Vikings.
-Ultralisks get countered by Marauders and Tanks.
-Infestors get countered by Tanks.
They only way for Zerg to win right now is by having a much better economy, but Terran has insane Harrass abilitys with the Hellion and the Reaper (and Viking for Overlord sniping). And they're able to abuse Terrain with Tank/Thor Drops on cliffs.
Usually single unit is countered by single unit. That is not a problem. (in BW, dragoons are countered by tanks and zealots are countered by vultures // vultures are countered by dragoons and tanks are countered by zealots, but the combinations stand pretty good and balanced)
The problem is, the Zerg combination got countered by Mech very hard. Single counter is not a big deal, but combination counter is really really bad.
It gets even worse when the number of units get more and more since each of the terran mech units does splash damage, and the only splash damage for zerg in mid-game is banes and FG, which are designed to use against bio terran.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
