The Battlecry of the Damned: Imbalance

On January 07 2011 17:04 Kyadytim wrote:
Interesting read, especially the part about the maps. BW map makers still have trouble determining if a map is going to be imbalanced before it gets played a lot (Battle Royal, anyone?), so why should we expect SC2 mapmakers working with a game that has been out for less than a year to do any better?
Following that, though, I really hate seeing BW brought up as an example of perfect balance, and, more importantly, Blizzard's ability to design a balanced game. Blizzard hasn't changed anything involved in BW PvZ forge FE since patch 1.04.

For example, that Protoss can put down a pylon, scout, and then play either forge cannon cannon nexus against 9-pool, forge nexus cannon cannon against overpool, or nexus whatever (forge gateway cannon, depending on map) against 12 hatch, and have both players be in a relatively equal position afterward is a complete accident. Blizzard didn't plan this. Blizzard didn't plan how certain configurations of Zerg buildings would block Zealots but not Zerglings or Hydralisks in Zerg walls. They certainly didn't plan the timings and costs that makes ZvT muta harass off of 2-hatch and 3-hatch builds legitimate threats but not totally broken on every map. They didn't plan for how PvT dragoon pressure on a wall up a ramp is enough to pull SCVs to repair the wall, but not enough to break it before the Siege Tanks can defend it unless the Terran screws up and gives away a tank or fails to repair. Blizzard didn't plan ranged Dragoon against Marine micro, or Muta against scourge Micro, or that Dragoons could kill mines without detection only when microed backwards properly, or any number of other things that I'm not thinking of right now.
BW, as a standalone game, is imbalanced. The maps make it balanced, by allowing Protoss to forge FE against Zerg, by having cliffs just the right distance from the Terran mineral line to allow Muta harass to be effective without being broken like Blue Storm used to be, and in hundreds of other little ways to offset the racial imbalances that are already present or enhanced in the map to try to get the imbalance to a zero sum.

From this, SC2 is not balanced. Blizzard screws up. If you don't believe me, go check some of the beta patches on the Liquipedia. They're working on it. They're doing a lot better with it then they are on Brood War, but because people have this delusion of BW being a perfectly balanced game, they set their expectations of SC2 balance very high, without giving Blizzard time to get it there. Patch 1.08, the last balance patch, was released a little over 3 years after the game was released. In contrast, SC2 has been out for maybe half a year. They have a decent idea of what they're doing, but it's going to take them a while to achieve balance, and in the meantime, there will be imbalances. It may not be huge things like 60 second warpgate research, but it will be things that even the casual player will run into every so often, or more if it's easy to exploit, like VR with 7 range were against Terran. It wasn't a tremendous deal at the time, because Terrans were mostly opening 1/1/1, and everyone who complained about VRs just got the advice "Build a Viking and keep it over your marines with micro." With the state of the metagame now, oGsMC's Stalker/VR opening would be incredibly devastating if VRs still had 7 range. Alternatively, think about that 2 rax marine/scv attack that TSL_Rain used to great effect in GSL3. Think about how much stronger that would have been if SCVs still had 60 hp.

It's all well and good to get mad at people complaining about imbalance, but it's impossible to know which minor imbalance might become a critical element of a game-breaking play style, and the more people are aware of something that might be wrong, the faster it can be isolated and fixed, either by a metagame shift or a patch from Blizzard. Unfortunately, the prevailing attitude here seems to be either "There is no imbalance" or "There might be imbalance, but we don't talk about it here," without actually examining the point of balance in question. This is, of course, a mod-enforced rule, but it does create a problem when someone brings up an issue that could be a metagame shift about to happen, or could be a balance problem, because people are only allowed to suggest player error and metagame as causes for the issue.

That being said, there are a tremendous number of people who post about imbalance because they're only looking at specific units. As an example here, I think the most commonly complained about unit since SC2 beta started is the Marauder in TvP. Yes, it is incredibly strong against Protoss in the early game. If all Protoss had were gateway units, Terran bio would be broken. However, that's not the case. While Terran bio is far more cost efficient against Protoss gateway units than those gateway units are against Terran bio, in general, Protoss late game units (Colossi and Templar in particular) are generally incredibly cost efficient compared to Terran's late game selection. And hey, isn't Templar with Psi Storm and the Amulet the second most complained about unit since beta? This creates the "balance" that Terran is strong in the early game and weak in the late game, and a very frustrating matchup in general. Hey. Blizzard is aware of this. They're working to fix it. Unfortunately, they've got to do it without breaking TvZ or PvZ.

I've wandered a bit off topic here, but going back to the initial post...

Well, treating the game as though it is perfectly balanced is great, except when it causes the metagame to evolve in ridiculous fashion. Remember back in beta, before the SCV health nerf? Protoss were opening forge and cannon on top of their ramp just because of the threat of a marine/scv all in. It was the only way to survive. Was that really healthy for the development of SC2?


So, if we just ignore the problem, it will go away? Well, probably, assuming Blizzard ever notices it. That doesn't mean that burying our heads in the sand is the best way act while we wait. Going back to my above point and the change in Void Ray range from 7 to 6. The Terran 1/1/1 opening TvP was popular because it allowed for fast Ravens and Vikings. Particularly the Vikings, as they were the only good way to not die to VRs while taking a relatively early expansion, especially on maps like LT with a cliff overlooking the natural. However, 1/1/1 seems to be a bit out of fashion, because Protoss learned ways to flat out kill it. The range was a minor imbalance, because it forced Terrans to either build a lot of Turrets or have early Vikings to deal with VRs, putting Terran players at least a little behind from the start. The SCV health issue was a major imbalance. I can't confirm it, but I think that the prevalent Protoss strategy until the health nerf after a bit of discussionwas to cannon rush the Terran every game. Metagame went nowhere, and no one really had fun with the matchup.

TL;DR:

Lay off the mapmakers. They're working with a new game, when BW mapmakers still screw up.

Brood War isn't balanced. It's the maps that make it balanced. Even then, that's only possible because of stuff Blizzard could not possibly have planned. Stop holding BW up as the standard of balance to which SC2 has to meet to be deemed an acceptable RTS. It's absurd.

Even noobs will stumble across imbalances and recognize them for what they are, especially if it's something easy to exploit.

Yes, disallowing balance discussion cuts a tremendous amount of garbage off from being posted on teamliquid. However...
SC2 isn't balanced. Blizzard is still working on it. They're planning balance changes in the next patch. And...
As balance isn't allowed to be mentioned on the strategy forums, when something is imbalanced, if someone brings it up as something they're having trouble with, even if they don't mention imbalance, the only advice people are allowed to give them is "micro/macro better" and "try this strategy instead."

Finally, balancing takes time. Blizzard seems to have worked out most of the large issues (the state of PvT being the exception), but there will, I'm sure, be plenty of minor balance changes coming over the next couple of years as the developing metagame brings to light small things that can be exploited.

Editing to respond to something Avilo said:

Oddly enough, if you define imbalance as something like "anything which causes a statistically significant skewing in win/loss ratio between any two players of even skill," builds which require vastly more effort to defend then to execute are something that could be considered imbalance, because the player executing it will logically be winning more than losing. 4-gate, Terran players stimming and charging up Protoss ramps in hopes that they miss that key forcefield... These things definitely could be called imbalance under that definition. And yes, there were strategies like this in BW, too, like proxy 2-gate in base PvT, but nothing to the extent that these SC2 strategies allow.

On January 07 2011 17:04 Kyadytim wrote:
Interesting read, especially the part about the maps. BW map makers still have trouble determining if a map is going to be imbalanced before it gets played a lot (Battle Royal, anyone?), so why should we expect SC2 mapmakers working with a game that has been out for less than a year to do any better?
Following that, though, I really hate seeing BW brought up as an example of perfect balance, and, more importantly, Blizzard's ability to design a balanced game. Blizzard hasn't changed anything involved in BW PvZ forge FE since patch 1.04.

For example, that Protoss can put down a pylon, scout, and then play either forge cannon cannon nexus against 9-pool, forge nexus cannon cannon against overpool, or nexus whatever (forge gateway cannon, depending on map) against 12 hatch, and have both players be in a relatively equal position afterward is a complete accident. Blizzard didn't plan this. Blizzard didn't plan how certain configurations of Zerg buildings would block Zealots but not Zerglings or Hydralisks in Zerg walls. They certainly didn't plan the timings and costs that makes ZvT muta harass off of 2-hatch and 3-hatch builds legitimate threats but not totally broken on every map. They didn't plan for how PvT dragoon pressure on a wall up a ramp is enough to pull SCVs to repair the wall, but not enough to break it before the Siege Tanks can defend it unless the Terran screws up and gives away a tank or fails to repair. Blizzard didn't plan ranged Dragoon against Marine micro, or Muta against scourge Micro, or that Dragoons could kill mines without detection only when microed backwards properly, or any number of other things that I'm not thinking of right now.
BW, as a standalone game, is imbalanced. The maps make it balanced, by allowing Protoss to forge FE against Zerg, by having cliffs just the right distance from the Terran mineral line to allow Muta harass to be effective without being broken like Blue Storm used to be, and in hundreds of other little ways to offset the racial imbalances that are already present or enhanced in the map to try to get the imbalance to a zero sum.

From this, SC2 is not balanced. Blizzard screws up. If you don't believe me, go check some of the beta patches on the Liquipedia. They're working on it. They're doing a lot better with it then they are on Brood War, but because people have this delusion of BW being a perfectly balanced game, they set their expectations of SC2 balance very high, without giving Blizzard time to get it there. Patch 1.08, the last balance patch, was released a little over 3 years after the game was released. In contrast, SC2 has been out for maybe half a year. They have a decent idea of what they're doing, but it's going to take them a while to achieve balance, and in the meantime, there will be imbalances. It may not be huge things like 60 second warpgate research, but it will be things that even the casual player will run into every so often, or more if it's easy to exploit, like VR with 7 range were against Terran. It wasn't a tremendous deal at the time, because Terrans were mostly opening 1/1/1, and everyone who complained about VRs just got the advice "Build a Viking and keep it over your marines with micro." With the state of the metagame now, oGsMC's Stalker/VR opening would be incredibly devastating if VRs still had 7 range. Alternatively, think about that 2 rax marine/scv attack that TSL_Rain used to great effect in GSL3. Think about how much stronger that would have been if SCVs still had 60 hp.

It's all well and good to get mad at people complaining about imbalance, but it's impossible to know which minor imbalance might become a critical element of a game-breaking play style, and the more people are aware of something that might be wrong, the faster it can be isolated and fixed, either by a metagame shift or a patch from Blizzard. Unfortunately, the prevailing attitude here seems to be either "There is no imbalance" or "There might be imbalance, but we don't talk about it here," without actually examining the point of balance in question. This is, of course, a mod-enforced rule, but it does create a problem when someone brings up an issue that could be a metagame shift about to happen, or could be a balance problem, because people are only allowed to suggest player error and metagame as causes for the issue.

That being said, there are a tremendous number of people who post about imbalance because they're only looking at specific units. As an example here, I think the most commonly complained about unit since SC2 beta started is the Marauder in TvP. Yes, it is incredibly strong against Protoss in the early game. If all Protoss had were gateway units, Terran bio would be broken. However, that's not the case. While Terran bio is far more cost efficient against Protoss gateway units than those gateway units are against Terran bio, in general, Protoss late game units (Colossi and Templar in particular) are generally incredibly cost efficient compared to Terran's late game selection. And hey, isn't Templar with Psi Storm and the Amulet the second most complained about unit since beta? This creates the "balance" that Terran is strong in the early game and weak in the late game, and a very frustrating matchup in general. Hey. Blizzard is aware of this. They're working to fix it. Unfortunately, they've got to do it without breaking TvZ or PvZ.

I've wandered a bit off topic here, but going back to the initial post...

Well, treating the game as though it is perfectly balanced is great, except when it causes the metagame to evolve in ridiculous fashion. Remember back in beta, before the SCV health nerf? Protoss were opening forge and cannon on top of their ramp just because of the threat of a marine/scv all in. It was the only way to survive. Was that really healthy for the development of SC2?


So, if we just ignore the problem, it will go away? Well, probably, assuming Blizzard ever notices it. That doesn't mean that burying our heads in the sand is the best way act while we wait. Going back to my above point and the change in Void Ray range from 7 to 6. The Terran 1/1/1 opening TvP was popular because it allowed for fast Ravens and Vikings. Particularly the Vikings, as they were the only good way to not die to VRs while taking a relatively early expansion, especially on maps like LT with a cliff overlooking the natural. However, 1/1/1 seems to be a bit out of fashion, because Protoss learned ways to flat out kill it. The range was a minor imbalance, because it forced Terrans to either build a lot of Turrets or have early Vikings to deal with VRs, putting Terran players at least a little behind from the start. The SCV health issue was a major imbalance. I can't confirm it, but I think that the prevalent Protoss strategy until the health nerf after a bit of discussionwas to cannon rush the Terran every game. Metagame went nowhere, and no one really had fun with the matchup.

TL;DR:

Lay off the mapmakers. They're working with a new game, when BW mapmakers still screw up.

Brood War isn't balanced. It's the maps that make it balanced. Even then, that's only possible because of stuff Blizzard could not possibly have planned. Stop holding BW up as the standard of balance to which SC2 has to meet to be deemed an acceptable RTS. It's absurd.

Even noobs will stumble across imbalances and recognize them for what they are, especially if it's something easy to exploit.

Yes, disallowing balance discussion cuts a tremendous amount of garbage off from being posted on teamliquid. However...
SC2 isn't balanced. Blizzard is still working on it. They're planning balance changes in the next patch. And...
As balance isn't allowed to be mentioned on the strategy forums, when something is imbalanced, if someone brings it up as something they're having trouble with, even if they don't mention imbalance, the only advice people are allowed to give them is "micro/macro better" and "try this strategy instead."

Finally, balancing takes time. Blizzard seems to have worked out most of the large issues (the state of PvT being the exception), but there will, I'm sure, be plenty of minor balance changes coming over the next couple of years as the developing metagame brings to light small things that can be exploited.

Editing to respond to something Avilo said:

Oddly enough, if you define imbalance as something like "anything which causes a statistically significant skewing in win/loss ratio between any two players of even skill," builds which require vastly more effort to defend then to execute are something that could be considered imbalance, because the player executing it will logically be winning more than losing. 4-gate, Terran players stimming and charging up Protoss ramps in hopes that they miss that key forcefield... These things definitely could be called imbalance under that definition. And yes, there were strategies like this in BW, too, like proxy 2-gate in base PvT, but nothing to the extent that these SC2 strategies allow.