|
On January 21 2011 15:43 Rodeo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2011 15:18 Apolo wrote:
Here's where i think you got it wrong. We can probably never determine perfect balance, i.e. prove that the game is balanced. That, as you explained, has too many variables to solve. However, even though we can't prove it, we can go with the next best thing, that you, as a fellow scientist should know, since it's used in science all the time: Inductive reasoning. I don't quite follow. Inductive reasoning is generalizing results that hold for a small set to a larger set, as you explain with the gravity example. But what are the small and large sets in SC2? For gravity the variable is the attractive force between two massive objects, the small set is all past observations of that force, and the large set is all observations of that force past and future. In SC the variable would be the win % between the races between players of equal skill? I suppose the small set would be the win percentage in all games played under one patch. I'm not clear how you would generalize that to a new balance patch, as you would expect the %s to change. I'm not sure the term "inductive reasoning" gets your point across, but either way you still have the problem of defining equal skill. There is no good way to do that.
We can't use equal skill, because as you said correctly, we can't define equal skill as we have no way to define skill to begin with if we don't know the game is balanced. Except in two cases: top and bottom players of each race. The limit to which the skill of the players will tend is the same at those levels, that is, bottom and top players of each race will tend to have very similar skills. So if the top has some fancy characteritics such as 60% winning rate for terran, we can get suspicious that something is going on. Also, the % of players of each race that play in big (that is, a lot of players participate, and a lot of selection occurs) tournaments and the % of them that go to finals and semis, should tend to be the same over time. If that's not happening, something is wrong.
The small sample are the games played so far for the top players of each race during a patch.
Just something to add to the OP: People commenting that Terran simply has more better players. How do you know it's them that are good, and not also the race that helps just a little? Perhaps if protoss was better, you'd see other good protoss dominate, and people say protoss simply has better players. Shouldn't it cross our minds, that perhaps one of the reasons some of them appear so much better is because of map / matchup imbalance?
|
Interesting post Rodeo. I agree with much of what you said in the post. Thanks for the insight.
|
Great read, and great first post!
|
I think there were a lot of great points in the OP. I think there were also a lot of great points made in the comments and follow up posts.
While not at a high level, when I watch the high high levels I generally feel like this game is balanced pretty damned well. I'm quite happy with it at my level I can win if outplay my opponent strategically which is exactly how I feel it should be.
The only time I feel like there is imbalance in the game is with some of the early "all-ins" and as it's been said before these put people behind on economy, but fit the broad balance definition of.. if it's easy to pull off and very hard to defend it's probably imbalanced.
Overall, I just like how this post makes you think more critically about the entire situation as a whole instead of losing the forest for the trees on one specific aspect of one specific matchup.
I wish more people understood and read the TL.Net rules, it's pretty clear some people didn't read through the discussion that has built up, let alone original post in it's entirety.
|
On January 20 2011 16:22 teamsolid wrote:
Wow, this is some pretty awesome analysis. I can't help but think back to how this might apply to BW as well. Historically, ZvP has always been in favor of the Z slightly, except in brief periods of metagame shift (i.e. Bisu's rise). The other two matchups, if you ask most people don't seem to be advantageous to either player when you watch a game.
However, if you look at the win %'s over all these years at the professional level, there's definitely a slight overall Z > P > T trend. I don't have the exact numbers, but I think it was something like ZvP 53%, PvT 53%, TvZ 51.5% (don't quote me on this), just slightly over 50% for the advantaged races. Maybe, the cause of these slight imbalances in PvT and TvZ are in fact due to the ZvP matchup. Now obviously the BW pro scene doesn't use MMR and map balance is a far larger contributor to balance, but your theory could still potentially apply at some level.
This has no application to BW because Broodwar doesn't have a ladder system.
Also, Broodwar has a VERY established pro-scene, and the stats you're using are the stats for professionals. There's a ranking system for the professionals, but they don't actually play games against each other according to the ranking system. It's just tournament play, there's no ladder. Thus, you can't get "matched up" to players according to skill, because there's no correlation between matchmaking and the point system like there is in SC2.
|
I enjoyed reading this article. The snowballing of imbalance was something I had not thought of. I can see why it is so hard to balance a game that is constantly changing, it feels like months ago I knew how to play pvt and now its already so different. Anyway this was really refreshing so thanks again.
|
On January 22 2011 01:16 Apolo wrote:
The limit to which the skill of the players will tend is the same at those levels, that is, bottom and top players of each race will tend to have very similar skills. So if the top has some fancy characteritics such as 60% winning rate for terran, we can get suspicious that something is going on. Also, the % of players of each race that play in big (that is, a lot of players participate, and a lot of selection occurs) tournaments and the % of them that go to finals and semis, should tend to be the same over time. If that's not happening, something is wrong.
The small sample are the games played so far for the top players of each race during a patch.
I see what you mean, and I generally agree. I allude to this near the end of my post as the one way I think balance could, at least to some approximation, be measured once the metagame has become more advanced. The question is one of whether the statistics are sound. It would be interesting to see what a statistician could make given the results a a bunch of major tourneys in one patch. Lots of interesting questions beyond balance might arise. Is there one matchup in which a less skillful player has a better chance of an upset (this could include the mirrors as well)? If so, that tells you what race you might want to play if you are hoping to affect or avoid an upset.
I see what you meant by inductive reasoning and I agree that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.
|
Big problem with the whole idea of balance is also in metagame changes and flavours of the month. MKP: bunker rush 2 rax. Fruitdealer: flood of zerg players.
|
Make hellions cost an extra 15 gas, then the game is balanced.
|
It's pretty much impossible to balance the game exactly until the metagame is refined.
The metagame changes, at least partially, due to the fact that there are imbalances waiting to exploited. But until they're exploited, we don't notice them.
|
The game is never going to be balanced, because you can't really compare apples with oranges and say which one is better. A trio of sieged tanks will always beat a bunch of zerglings because that is their purpose, but a single Mutalisk can get rid of those tanks without any danger to itself.
So the challenge for the game designers is not to spread equal stats among the races and give each race their own version of siege tank and zergling, but rather to make them different enough and give each race ways to defend against every kind of attack the opponent can throw at him. This is the only reason why things get changed ... the inability to defend against things.
Sadly most of the whining on forums is about "imba siege tanks" or "hellions" or "banelings" or "forcefields" when they are used in an advantageous position or rather: the defender didnt prepare for them. Sieged tanks on a cliff are invulnerable to melee or short range units and you need a spotter as well. Are they "imbalanced" because of this? No, they are just doing what their purpose is and you just need to get the right units to defeat them. The problem only arises when you could have built the right stuff to defend but didnt do it. Doing the right thing involves scouting and a lot of game knowledge about good tactics an opponent could use.
The bottom lines are:- Dont whine about sieged tanks when all you do is run masses of zerglings into them (and other equally braindead stuff).
- Maps are a key part of racial balance or there would never ever be a need to downvote a map or remove it from the pool, but it is easier to whine about "60 splash damage" or "13 range" than a terrain feature.
- Early problems (which have been the reason for most major changes) can at least in part be solved by adjusting the map size without changing the stats of units.
- And lastly: This game will never ever be balanced.
|
On January 22 2011 17:35 febreze wrote:
Make hellions cost an extra 15 gas, then the game is balanced.
Swap marines with hellions. ^^
On January 22 2011 11:20 wherebugsgo wrote:
This has no application to BW because Broodwar doesn't have a ladder system.
Also, Broodwar has a VERY established pro-scene, and the stats you're using are the stats for professionals. There's a ranking system for the professionals, but they don't actually play games against each other according to the ranking system. It's just tournament play, there's no ladder. Thus, you can't get "matched up" to players according to skill, because there's no correlation between matchmaking and the point system like there is in SC2.
Isn't ICCUP the BW ladder? Where most of the pro teams and even individual pros have accounts?
|
I would like to add another point to your analysis here.
Lets say that race A has some sort of slight imbalance vs race B, but nothing gamebreaking as such, just an advantage. The players of race A , will of course, abuse this strategy to the fullest, its only natural to use strong tactics when this is possible.
And in this time , most of them will stagnate. They have this seemingly unstoppable strategy, so why on earth should they focus on anything else?
This however won't be the case for a lot of the players of race B.
Sure there will be a lot of whining Omg race A>B but they will have the motivation to train more.
And eventually a suitable solution is found. Now suddenly players of Race A, who have not been developing their play at all, sit there without their beautiful strategy and have to adapt as well.
This will lead to a time where there is equality or even advantage for race B, not because race B is stronger but because one race developed and one did not.
And this is also where a patch can seemingly screw over race B.
Lets move back to the time before race B found a final solution, but are starting to figure out ways around this strategy. Remember , there was a slight imbalance. And now Blizzard fixes it . Suddenly the players who have been doing their unbeatable strategy are left with no experience outside of it. They naturally dont have a clue what to do now, beacause they never got into this situation. A nerfed race A who has been stagnating now has to figure out new solutions and will get smashed by race B overall giving them , again, a feeling of imbalance.
Another time of adapting will come, Race A will adapt and Race B will get weaker compared to race A
Just one quick example of what i am talking about (and please dont see this as an argument of Imbalance if you read what i said you should see what i am talking about )
Remember the huge terran nerf? before that terrans could do a lot of things in ZvT they can not do anymore. for a while that left zerg very strong , i remember boxer saying he would switch races if terran does not get "fixed" TLO got flamed for always chosing the "strongest race".
Now the zerg are back in the "figuring out" phase of the matchup and its their time to whine again.
But its cerainly too early to tell for sure if this or any matchup is imbalanced or not.
Last example : broodwar. The game was not patched at all after a certain point and it would be foolish to think there were not some noticable or unnoticable imbalances that just got overwhelmed by enough minds trying to fins solutions
(wow this got longer than i thought it would i hope its understandable enough-> im very tired)
|
On January 21 2011 04:21 Skyze wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2011 01:04 Rabiator wrote:On January 21 2011 00:53 Skyze wrote:
Everyone complaining about map imbalance, is just complaining. So you are saying there is no map imbalance and that no map favours any race? Dont you think there is enough evidence to suggest otherwise? The amount of "map imbalance" is very VERY small right now, when the game is so new that no one has possibly figured the 100% perfect buildorder/timing like it is in BW. I think map imbalance really only takes place after 5+ years, when the game is exhausted of its timings/strats/etc like BW is.. Right now, the game is so new that you should be able to defend anything on any map, or alternately find different ways to take advantage of the map for your race. I played random over 200 games at 2800+ diamond level right before masters came out, and I never felt anything was impossible on any map. No matchup ever felt "impossible" on certain maps, any loss/win was solely the fact of the player, not the map. Now there may be SMALL map issues, like the thor being able to hit a hatch on one cliff on LT where it wouldnt on the other bases.. but until things like that are being abused/used every single game and proving to largely influence the games (which I dont see anything like that happening right now), these maps are fine right now. the only reason maps make such a difference in BW is because the races/buildorders/timings are 99.9% perfected. SC2 is at least 5 years away from that being the case, with 2 more expansions coming out.
Every map in the pool is too small and/or favors a rushy style of play. Therefore every map is massively imbalanced. How you can rationalize your statements here is really beyond my understanding because for there to be 'only very small map issues' the size, and layout of every map must be appropriate for the type of play going on. And for high level 1v1 play, the current map pool in its entirety is a failure. 'Map imbalance only really takes 5+ years to come into effect' - I love the arbitrary number of 5 years you just pulled out of a hat when you wrote that sentence, really do. The only reason it took 5 years in Brood War was because everyone was still learning what StarCraft in general is all about. We know that now, the maps Blizzard made suck compared to the long history of KeSPA and ICCUP maps which have been perfected for Brood War. I agree it may take several years to flush out the meta-game properly, but I cannot agree whatsoever that map imbalance will take five years to be figured out. Map imbalances were figured out in the Beta. Now lets make sure that unlike Brood War we fix them instead of ignorantly touting that 'x arbitrary length of time is required to figure out map imbalance'.
|
Very well thought and written, Rodeo!!
But when it comes to starcraft (or any RTS) balancing doesn´t necessarily mean attempting to make the game fair for every race. Though most of the times it does, the use of the term "balance" is often meant to refer to the excessive use of a unit over another.
For instance, you can, with no difficulty whatsoever, find on these foruns topics about increasing hydralisks speed off the creep or decreasing roaches life or speed, all for the so called balancing purpose. But what makes people discuss that is the fact that roaches are much more used than hydras, even in mid-late game. People who make those claims don´t necessarily analyse each match-up but do so because they would like to see zerg players (since i´m using hydras and roaches as examples) to vary a bit more and use something else than mass roaches on every stage of the game.
Just to clear something out, i´m not sugesting that roaches and hydras serve the same purpose. What i´m saying is that people take the "potentially excessive" use of a unit rather than another as reason for sugesting a balancing change. And THAT is worth of serious consideration when planning for a balance change.
Peace!!
|
On February 02 2011 18:23 LuDGeR BriNk wrote:
But when it comes to starcraft (or any RTS) balancing doesn´t necessarily mean attempting to make the game fair for every race. Though most of the times it does, the use of the term "balance" is often meant to refer to the excessive use of a unit over another.
Personally I think the game can be made "fair" but never "balanced", because fair means that everyone has advantages over the other one time or another and balanced more or less means that every side is equal. Maybe my personal definitions of these terms are different from others, but I think it is important to have precise definitions so everyone talks about the same thing in the same terms. (see my signature)
|
Blizzard have always created games close to perfection and constantly working on them, even years after their release, balance-wise. When SCII first came out, I was amazed with how good and refined this game was and how in my mind actually surpassed its predecessor (an almost impossible task as the first SC was for me the best game ever made).
The thing is though that the term 'PERFECT BALANCE' is not a valid term. Its not that it cannot be achieved, its that it doesnt exist and the reason for that is that the game features THREE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT RACES. 3 sets of advantages, 3 sets of disandvantages, 3 sets of mechanics, 3 of everything. All Blizzard can do is to make it as close as it gets, and then comes in the creativity of the individual and how he manages the advantages and disadvantages of his race. When people are bored to use their race as effective as they can and they just seek easy wins doing the same things over and over again, then the terms imbalanced, OP etc come into play.
I play Protoss (which some of you consider the ''strongest'' race) in mid-high diamond and you'll be impressed if i told you that it frequently crosses my mind the idea of switching to Zerg (the ''weak race'') because protoss has some disadvantages (as the other races as well) which when exploited, create unwinable situations for the race. This is not whining, i dont do that and no one else should in my opinion as i explained above that ''perfect balance'' isnt something achievable no matter how many years pass. The only achievable thing for SCII, is to come as close to balanced as it gets, and then let the individualism play its role giving us great matches to watch.
Quit whining, get better!
Much love to the community.
PS. Two things that could change in my humple opinion:
1). Somehow make the Z late game stronger. I think Z strangles vs P and T when it comes to two maxed armies colliding. The change however should NOT affect early game units and mechanics because that could cause the other races to lose quite easily to Z early on.
2). Make observers beefier or give Protoss another way to detect.
|
Perfect balance can only be established with mathematical simulation. I imagine very close to perfect balance could be ascertained by simulating the game, although it would be tricky defining rules which would sufficiently narrow the range of the game, and the radical variation in boundary conditions (ie, different maps) would be the principal difficulty.
Blizzard should really hire some specialists to code such a program and then get supercomputing time to generate all the data. Blizzards current method of balancing unit compositions (ie, using a special map that repeatedly simulates a battle) is a complete joke, even micromanagement is ignored.
|
On February 02 2011 23:38 Hypatio wrote:
Perfect balance can only be established with mathematical simulation. I imagine very close to perfect balance could be ascertained by simulating the game, although it would be tricky defining rules which would sufficiently narrow the range of the game, and the radical variation in boundary conditions (ie, different maps) would be the principal difficulty.
Blizzard should really hire some specialists to code such a program and then get supercomputing time to generate all the data. Blizzards current method of balancing unit compositions (ie, using a special map that repeatedly simulates a battle) is a complete joke, even micromanagement is ignored.
... plus you have a trillion-bazillion ways to weigh each factor into the equasion of balance, which makes the whole thing ridiculous AND impossible to accomplish. Just face (and accept) it: Starcraft 2 can NEVER be balanced (on your mathematical scale) ... only made fair for all sides involved by giving each race opportunities to abuse their own racial specials ... and that involves the actual unit abilities, the terrain features and especially the map size.
|
Looking at TLPD map stats since the reaper nerf patch came out, the only matchup that's more imbalanced than anything in BW (about 55%) is TvZ on maps with short rush distances, which has something like 60% T win rates. That's actually pretty good, so I see why Blizzard doesn't want to rush balance patches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
