EPT
The tricky nature of discussing balance - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Subversion
South Africa3627 Posts
| ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On September 06 2010 03:08 PJA wrote: I really disagree with this. Players who aren't good really don't know anything about balance. Go back to beta when storm was nerfed. How many protoss players said storm was going to be useless and terrible? Almost all of them whined constantly. Flash forward to today. Storm is amazing PvT and PvZ, with many people now saying storm is imba late game. This was completely due to players being worse then than they are now. Players who are bad really don't understand the game. When I watch top players, I often don't understand how their build orders work or what they're doing, and I'm 1300 diamond with 60 apm average. I'm obviously not winning based solely on blindly executing things well with sick micro/macro, I'm a thinking player who relies more on that, but I still don't comprehend HuK's play entirely. Do you really think that a 700 player understands HuK's play more than he or I do? I doubt it. You're sort of missing the point. The point is that a good argument for balance or imbalance can come from anywhere or anyone. Therefore, you should look at the substance of the argument, not merely who's saying it. If someone just cries, "the area is smaller, we'll never use it again!" then they have not put forth much of an argument. They've simply cited a fact (the smaller area) and their opinion on that subject. This statement can, and should, be freely ignored because it is completely unqualified. It's not an argument. There will always be a lot of ignorant posting on balance. You should disregard it because it is obviously ignorant, not because of who's saying it. That way, when a person comes along who actually is knowledgeable, and makes a reasoned argument for or against a position, you can afford it the proper weight rather than rejecting it out of hand. | ||
|
Wolfpox
Canada164 Posts
I mean having experience with the game is obviously good when discussing balance, but you can practice the shit out of the game versus your friends, or Insane A.I. even, and master all sorts of things -- and yet you won't be in "Diamond League". You could be a great player with a solid knowledge of mechanics, high APM and strategy, but simply not have played the games to climb the ladder. You could also go into the ladder and practice all sorts of zany build orders, experiment, and be in Silver League because you weren't trying to win at all costs. A lot of people in Diamond Rank have won with a handful of memorized strategies, and then they think they know everything. Meanwhile, people who are actually exploring strategies and allowing themselves to take risks and lose are suddenly not valid to a discussion? It's just stupid. TeamLiquid is all about respecting veterans, but when it comes to balance discussion, it doesn't need to boil down to numbers, facts and experience. If you want to talk about numbers, then yes, you should know the facts -- but concepts, ideas, and the "feel" of things is what actually matters -- the numbers are just there to produce a result. That result is more important than the number. | ||
|
Paperscraps
United States639 Posts
Most people that read the OP and "appreciate" it aren't the target audience that really needs to see it. If one person reads through it and is "enlightened", then it was definitely worth the time and effort. I for one, tip my hat to you good sir. | ||
|
shindigs
United States4795 Posts
For the most part, I think pro player's pragmatism is what will ultimately be accepted as the "truth" in balance discussion - what they do just works. They don't second question it probably because they've played enough games to see what happens when you stray away from the pragmatic path. However, that doesn't mean some pro players don't experiment with certain builds and strategies - qxc's build tester is sort of a testament to some pro's willingness to experiment. In the end, I think its fair to only listen to pro players because they go to the top with what works. Lower level players can randomly shout out solutions - and hey some may just work - but I think thats more attributed to random suggestions rather than true understanding of the game. I don't want to take an extreme stance, so I'll say that some lower level contributions are valuable due to understanding of the game despite lack of mechanics. But I'll argue that this group is a minority in terms of a solid understanding of the deeper strategies and mind games in strategic trends. Hope to hear your thoughts on it. | ||
|
Wolfpox
Canada164 Posts
On September 07 2010 17:20 shindigs wrote: In the end, I think its fair to only listen to pro players because they go to the top with what works. Lower level players can randomly shout out solutions - and hey some may just work - but I think thats more attributed to random suggestions rather than true understanding of the game. I don't want to take an extreme stance, so I'll say that some lower level contributions are valuable due to understanding of the game despite lack of mechanics. But I'll argue that this group is a minority in terms of a solid understanding of the deeper strategies and mind games in strategic trends. Hope to hear your thoughts on it. Sure there are some high level players who are willing to experiment. But do they create suggestions and balance feedback based on that? It's just part of the pragmatism, of creating a more efficient way of doing something. That's what they do: refine everything and streamline it. That's what creating build orders are all about, and that's what high level gamers do best right now. When it comes to seeing past the "here and now" and questioning the way things "should be", they are still either quiet, or their opinions are painted as biased complaints. If qxc said that he had found a build that was too powerful, or didn't "feel" right, he would still have the burden of proof, player-blame, the game's newness, and everything else to contend with! Anyone who suggests a change is supposed to have a handful of replays, statistical flow charts, and a ton of other wonderfully impressive shit that people will still dismiss based on one of the factors I discussed. The conversation goes nowhere, unfortunately. "Doing what works" is only proof that you can do what works. What I said about the Diamond League becoming increasingly watered down thanks to divisions also needs to be kept in mind. Every week, some people are thrown into Diamond League based on their placement matches, and don't even know why. Sadly, the rank means very little, really, although it should be a clear indicator of knowledge, understanding and skill. It's such a tricky thing to discuss. Nobody is in a position to discuss it, and yet it needs to be discussed. What other solution does that point to than simply considering -- and yet being thoughtful and critical of -- every suggestion, regardless of where it comes from? | ||
|
Petshop
Canada73 Posts
| ||
|
R0YAL
United States1768 Posts
On September 05 2010 23:27 Wolfpox wrote: Another reason why discussing balance is tricky is because every player who has a favorite race can be called biased, and those who select Random or have no favorite race are never as familiar with the cutting-edge strategies of the races as somebody who specializes. The probability of a biased perspective means that we should probably "filter" every opinion by assuming every player wants their race to be at least a little bit overpowered, and their other races to be at a slight disadvantage. You can never trust a player to be truly fair. Almost stopped reading because of that extreme use of "never" which is highly objective, however the article was well written so I read on You present some good points, balance is very tricky because of the vast skill differences of everyone around the globe. Not everyone is the same level of skill ofc so just because one person wins in a certain situation doesnt mean that everyone will win in that circumstance. Blizzard also goes even further because they are striving to balance the game on all levels of play, something that im pretty sure is impossible lol >_< The only way that will ever happen is after the game has been figured in at least 5+ years and everyone knows the game inside and out because its the most popular thing on tv, or in other words "my wet dream." ^_^gl blizz | ||
|
Wolfpox
Canada164 Posts
On September 08 2010 01:31 R0YAL wrote: Almost stopped reading because of that extreme use of "never" which is highly objective, however the article was well written so I read on You know you're absolutely right. I edited it to correct that, the wording was too strong there. Truth is I was talking about how the average person's perspective would assume that Random is weaker than a devoted race, but it's better as something moderate. I'm glad you guys like the post, I really thought it needed to be said too. | ||
|
kmisho64
United States5 Posts
Given the pace of computer change, the novelty- and modernization-seeking gaming public, the more philosophical difficulties mentioned above, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there will never be a balanced RTS. Oh we can make them good enough for jazz, but we're just going to have to get used to imbalance. If you think a side is underpowered, you're just going to have to stop playing it. If you think one is overpowered, play it. And, in either case, no complaining. The best we can hope for is some tinkering with the relatively obvious near the beginning...where we are now. After that, the only way to balance a game is with years or even decades of continual play and a few generations of genius vs. genius. But we'll need a game that can last through all that. Blizzard could do something historic in this direction if they took the Brood War engine exactly as it is and applied modern graphics so the game can keep on going. I'd buy it in a heartbeat. But Blizzard will never compete with its own new game. Maybe updating Brood War is all they should have done in the first place... | ||
|
McFoo
United Kingdom180 Posts
For example, if a fourth race was introduced, which could technically win in any match-up, but only if the player had over 1,000 Actions Per Minute or the opponent made several critical errors... Zerg?  | ||
| ||
