EPT[D] Imbalance as a spectator. - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
Chill: This thread is about how the perception of balance is not in-line with hard statistics. If you don't have a comment about that fact, DO NOT post in this thread. | ||
|
Backpack
United States1776 Posts
| ||
|
catabowl
United States815 Posts
My only complaint I see is the Forcefield. 12 seconds seems way too long. I've wanted forcefield to have less time (8 seconds maybe) or have Hit Points (100 is a good round number) but you would have to target them. (they would not be active like the scv repair) One person also suggested that forcefields last less time on Creep only... I kinda of like that for ZvP. I think once more strats come into play, the mechanics will even out. You don't see MnM vs toss in BW that much... it's purely mech play. Siege tanks, hellions, vikings might become the new build. It all comes on the evolution of playing! | ||
|
Disarm22
United States151 Posts
| ||
|
EtherealDeath
United States8366 Posts
| ||
|
spacemonkeyy
Australia477 Posts
As a P I remember when P was considered to be weak and under powered, and protoss still is a race where you also live and die by small decisions, really powerful when you play perfectly easy to abuse with mistakes. A player like MC plays so well and makes P look more OP than it is, add community zerg QQ and its easy to see why.. Personally I think units shouldn't be tweaked any further, every patch leaves me feeling depressed. Wait for the metagame to change it takes more than 1-2 months. | ||
|
Blacksoul87
United States12 Posts
| ||
|
Tianx
United States1196 Posts
This has more to do with the way people look at things than just Starcraft alone. For one familiar example, anyone who has played poker has seen someone go insane when their Ace-King loses to undercards despite being not even a 65% favorite because 'the game is rigged' or whatnot. It's too difficult for the casual observer/player to distinguish between a large imbalance and a small one (and, if you look at Idra, possibly too difficult for many serious gamers as well). The end result is that everything ends up getting lumped into 'imba' in the brain which leads to the trashy 'unfair, this sucks, retarded protoss gayness' that clutters the LR threads. The fact is we have a switch that goes between 'fair' and 'unfair,' and the numbers don't actually end up mattering whether you're a 99% favorite or a 51% favorite once you've decided everything is unfair. | ||
|
Sablar
Sweden880 Posts
On April 02 2011 11:27 spacemonkeyy wrote: Personally I think units shouldn't be tweaked any further, every patch leaves me feeling depressed. Wait for the metagame to change it takes more than 1-2 months. I've been thinking that it might be good to start tweaking more, also because the meta-game is constantly evolving anyway. I don't think large changes to the game would lead to the statistics going way off the 50/50 mark after the initial break-in period. People adapt their strategies and make up for it anyway. The statistics won't be way off because new strategies themselves will work towards evening things out, regardless of balance. My thoughts of Z having a hard time is based a lot on how Z are playing and not winrate. There hasn't really been any remarkable change in the meta-game, apart from taking more risks. These risks are what happens when the options are starting to run out. Regarding the poker example those odds 65/35 would be awful if they reflected balance. I think it would require extreme changes instead of large changes for such a variance to occur. For me the T/P total of 60/84 looks like a clear indication, since metagame would work in favor of a 50/50 rate. The numbers themselves would definetely be statistically significant. Which of course doesn't mean that a significant difference is caused by imbalance. While meta-game will balance itself out it would do so over time, and at any one time it might look very grim for one race and then change. But what to do when strategies stop evolving like I am spectating in the games? So to sum things up, I would expect statistics that don't go far off from 50/50 in a game that is driven by constant change in strategy and also some parts luck (or anything above 1-set would be unnecessary). This also makes it extremely hard to say what is balanced, but I think that risk-taking (and successrate), how static strategies are, plus even small variations in statistics can indicate that it exists. The big question might be how long such indications need to exist before being taken as proof of imbalance. Myself I would like bigger changes overall, because I don't think it would be necessarily be bad if one race was buffed or nerfed too much instead of too little. edit.. T/P stats not added up right in OP. | ||
|
Virid
United States130 Posts
Honestly, + Show Spoiler + Dimaga versus San was miserably boring to watch. Dimaga kind of just got rolled against a 200/200 | ||
|
SilverPotato
United States560 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Anypro makes deathball, and kills Jinro x 2 I admire Artosis and Tasteless for trying to give those games more depth but it just wasn't there. It seems most TvPs go that way, not saying that's all Protoss has to do or can do, but that currently it's all the most protoss are doing, and from a spectator's point of view that looks very very broken. | ||
|
Fiercegore
United States294 Posts
Good news though, blizzard is fixing the bug where terran players could lose with patch 1.4.11 =) | ||
|
manicshock
Canada741 Posts
| ||
|
Heavenly
2172 Posts
On April 02 2011 10:24 catabowl wrote: Instead of screaming imbalance... maybe come up with some outside thinking on why you think. My only complaint I see is the Forcefield. 12 seconds seems way too long. I've wanted forcefield to have less time (8 seconds maybe) or have Hit Points (100 is a good round number) but you would have to target them. (they would not be active like the scv repair) One person also suggested that forcefields last less time on Creep only... I kinda of like that for ZvP. I think once more strats come into play, the mechanics will even out. You don't see MnM vs toss in BW that much... it's purely mech play. Siege tanks, hellions, vikings might become the new build. It all comes on the evolution of playing! Good idea, then I die to every single all-in. Forcefield would be so good at protecting me, when it dies in 2 seconds because it has 100 health. It would be so worth it to get sentries, when in a late game scenario, you could box a group of units from your unit ball, select each forcefield, one-shot them, then forcefield will have done nothing but waste 100 gas on a unit that is horrible in an actual engagement. Clearly the way to nerf forcefield is to make it worthless. And plenty of games are won without a single forcefield in ZvP. Apparently every single P unit has become imba in the last couple months---voidray, colossus, blink stalker, sentry, phoenix, high templar, dark templar. Just give us zealots and plain stalkers, since everything else that has ever won a game for a protoss is imba. | ||
|
jazzbassmatt
United States566 Posts
| ||
|
`Forte
United States128 Posts
I agree with BackPack that a lot of perceived imbalance comes from the community. I could show my friend MC vs. July GSL5 finals and, because he has a neutral point of view, he'd probably just be shocked at how good MC is. If I could travel back in time, show him all the, "FF imbalance" and "MC vs. July Analysis" threads on TL, and then show him the set, he'd probably have a much different view and would be more focused on, "How do you stop that? Forcefield really could be imbalanced," rather than watching the entire game. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
But lets look at a game where some Spine Crawlers were used: Moonglade vs. TT1 on Shakuras Plateau from the GSL world championships. TT1 was advancing through the middle of the map with a big clump of Stalkers and Sentries and whatever and moonglade was defending somewhat successfully with Roaches and Hydras. Sure people have commented that glade didnt have range upgraded for the Hydras, but that wasnt the only thing to improve. Moonglade had built a lousy TWO Spine Crawlers and advanced them into the middle, but what if he had built more of them? Zerg are always whining about Forcefields, but what if they built about 10 Spine Crawlers and brought them to the middle of the map a little back from the spot where you expect the fighting to be (maybe one Tumor away from the edge of the creep?)? Just having 1-2 Spine Crawlers helps you against the first push with maybe five Stalkers, but what happens when there are 20 of them later on? The Spine Crawlers just get one-shotted and deal zero damage due to regenerating shields. So the answer is to build LOTS of them - especially against someone without Colossi - and to use them to create a fallback position because Roaches and Hydras cant really escape when they try to retreat from Stalkers. On very large maps it might be useful to use a Nydus worm to create a patch of Creep (which then gets expanded by a Queen) to grow a colony of Spine Crawlers close to the opponents base. If you contain the opponent early enough there might not be too much pressure coming from him to disrupt your own "master plan to win". Often enough the one who is dictating the game wins over the one who is passive and turtling and Zerg can easily do that if they started thinking outside the box of 1a2a3a and then some micro ftw. Start thinking strategically since this is a strategy game after all. | ||
|
Sablar
Sweden880 Posts
It's even worse if you start taking into the account that a percieved imbalance will result in worse results for people. Like when telling a classroom that a test will be easier for a certain group, the end results will favor that group. Something which doesn't happen when just saying nothing. But I mean, it can't all be perceived either. And arguments and ideas aren't invalidated because something prompted them, simply because the same principle applies to everyone. | ||
| ||
