|
On April 29 2011 05:30 andrewwiggin wrote:
Lol wow
Inb4 nerds rage at browder for knowing sc2 better than them.
Oh too late.
Really though. Every single person here complaining about balance has zero fucking clue including some of the dumbest theory crafting of all time. ("oh. Oh, hard counters, my race still up, can't win except if I do pressure, blah blah")
Oh wait, browder has stats that show incredible win loss margin indicators of balance. But he's still wrong.
Oh wait browder consults grandmaster players, and disregards bias statements. But he's still wrong.
Oh wait, browder keeps track of all high level tournaments to scout for unusual win loss rates or op/broken strategies, and finds none.. But he's still wrong.
Everyone should stop mashing on this dude. Because as far as I've seen now, balance actually IS incredibly robust right now. And I'm going to send the guy flowers and a box of chocolates, thanking him for dedicating this portion of his life to balancing a beautiful game, whilst not letting trolls dumb him down win their utterly stupid theorycraft. (yes offense intended)
Yeah
Dustin : That is actually not the case. This situation where one unit counters another unit is not as serious as it was in Starcraft 1. Let's say we have a templar fighting a zergling, and the templar always loses. That's a situation where we really see one unit countering another unit. As of now, the balance between unit-counters and micro is better than in Starcraft 1.
No
Time and time again Browder has proven that he and his team knows jack shit about SC1 and balancing in general. I wouldn't put too much faith in the Blizzard balancing team.
|
As of now, the balance between unit-counters and micro is better than in Starcraft 1.
I honestly lol'd there. I think we can fear HotS if he analyses the game that way..
|
On April 29 2011 01:50 Azarkon wrote:
Well, if we're going to go by what pro players say...
Idra (Z): Zerg is underpowered
Nestea (Z): Zerg is underpowered
FruitDealer (Z): Zerg is underpowered
MC (P): Zerg is not underpowered
MVP (T): Terran is underpowered
Tyler (P): Protoss is not overpowered
Incontrol (P): Protoss doesn't seem to be overpowered?
IIRC, that's what I've read so far.
If we go by what head coaches who are also pro players say:
Every single one said Zerg is weak. From the Artosis interviews with IM, Slayers, oGs, etc.
|
dustin dont know abouth balance and look at C&C 4 what a stupide game just lol....
balancing is one thing but there is one more thing to add : and that is game entertaming to whatch....
look at TvZ maby is 50/50 cance of wining (balanced) but terran have 12 unites (also zerg 2 ) and we see mass stimed marines vs zerglings banglins and mutas every game... that is so boring that i cant explain...
but entertament is also balance thing... exemple : terran is now all around stim and marines do all jobs thay can....(almoust everything) (and if you whatch mass marines every game where is strategy in it and also balance ?)
so make more usfull unites and game will be more fun to whatch imidiatly...
nerf stim buff tenks buff thor speed nerf banglings speed...colloss dps ...and game will be more fun to whatch and be more balanced...  sry of my ENG....
|
On April 29 2011 06:36 thebole1 wrote:dustin dont know abouth balance and look at C&C 4 what a stupide game just lol.... balancing is one thing but there is one more thing to add : and that is game entertaming to whatch.... look at TvZ maby is 50/50 cance of wining (balanced) but terran have 12 unites (also zerg 2 ) and we see mass stimed marines vs zerglings banglins and mutas every game... that is so boring that i cant explain... but entertament is also balance thing... exemple : terran is now all around stim and marines do all jobs thay can....(almoust everything) (and if you whatch mass marines every game where is strategy in it and also balance ?) so make more usfull unites and game will be more fun to whatch imidiatly... nerf stim buff tenks buff thor speed nerf banglings speed...colloss dps ...and game will be more fun to whatch and be more balanced... sry of my ENG....
i just talked to blizzard on the phone and they want you on the balance team asap
|
On April 29 2011 06:36 thebole1 wrote:dustin dont know abouth balance and look at C&C 4 what a stupide game just lol....balancing is one thing but there is one more thing to add : and that is game entertaming to whatch.... look at TvZ maby is 50/50 cance of wining (balanced) but terran have 12 unites (also zerg 2 ) and we see mass stimed marines vs zerglings banglins and mutas every game... that is so boring that i cant explain... but entertament is also balance thing... exemple : terran is now all around stim and marines do all jobs thay can....(almoust everything) (and if you whatch mass marines every game where is strategy in it and also balance ?) so make more usfull unites and game will be more fun to whatch imidiatly... nerf stim buff tenks buff thor speed nerf banglings speed...colloss dps ...and game will be more fun to whatch and be more balanced... sry of my ENG....
People should get their timelines right...
Dustin LEFT after working on BFME1. BFME2, C&C3, RA3, and C&C4 were all made by a completely separate team, and Browder took absolutely no part in their development since he was at Blizzard since 2005.
|
Man, I can't believe they don't even have a timetable for clan support in Bnet. Clan support and tournament support should have come with the thing at release. It would be such an easy thing to do to add a huge amount of usefulness to Bnet.
|
If he actually believes that overcoming a unit counter with good control happens more in SC2 than in BW, then I honestly dread for the future of this game. I can only hope he was just trying to bullshit himself out of a difficult question, or the translation is off in some respect.
As for balance - Am I the only person who sees the problem with making a statistical argument based on games played on the current ladder maps? I mean, they already admitted that the maps aren't meant for competitive play, so why do they use the data for balancing? Do they really think games played on close position whatever, on Slag Pits, Scrap Station, and so forth, give meaningful input as to the state of the game? I don't get it.
|
it wasnt protoss artifact that changed kerrigan... it was a xelnaga artifact -_-
|
i just talked to blizzard on the phone and they want you on the balance team asap
hahahah i hope they listen to comunity simply we keep their games alive...also they patch it after...
games are made for as and all expirianced players can recenise what is mising in new game as this or some other...i played wc3 tft a litle sc1 bw..(before sc2 come out) and i hope it would be at list good as bw...
but simply look at pro lvl of game...hard conters eat this game (wc3 also have hard conters and some unite becomed usles ....but sc1unites from begining to end have some purpes and that is what made that game epic..)
|
On April 29 2011 04:55 Befree wrote:This is one of those threads where I'm just really disappointed by most of the community's responses.. This is a translated interview, don't take it as some sort of clear statement of Blizzard's current view on the game. What you should take from translated interviews like this are details like seasons being 3 months, new maps every season, or the little info on heart of the swarm. I feel embarrassed as a StarCraft player when I see responses from the community like this  . Reminds me of the childish/whiny communities of other games. Thank you for translating this, though!
This pretty much sums up how I feel about a lot of the comments
I also want to say TY for the translation though!
On April 29 2011 06:29 _Darwin_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 01:50 Azarkon wrote:
Well, if we're going to go by what pro players say...
Idra (Z): Zerg is underpowered
Nestea (Z): Zerg is underpowered
FruitDealer (Z): Zerg is underpowered
MC (P): Zerg is not underpowered
MVP (T): Terran is underpowered
Tyler (P): Protoss is not overpowered
Incontrol (P): Protoss doesn't seem to be overpowered?
IIRC, that's what I've read so far. If we go by what head coaches who are also pro players say: Every single one said Zerg is weak. From the Artosis interviews with IM, Slayers, oGs, etc.
I dunno though. Did just a while ago everyone think Protoss was in a weak spot? Then suddenly a few NERFS later Protoss is "op". I think the game is still a bit new to throw out generalizations. I could be totally wrong, but just going on previous experience.
|
He definitely dodged the IMBA question. He brought up how every grandmaster across each region has similar win ratio. Well.. of course they're gonna have similar win ratio, if one of them had 40% win ratio, they're not gonna be in Grandmasters.
Also, that micro analogy is just laughable. You can tell Dustin didn't really want to answer some of these questions straight on.
|
A TL MATH QUIZ!!!
Two players play a game of Starcraft 2. One player is named Allen. The other player is named Charlie. When they play, their resulting win ratio against each other will be a function of two variables:
- Each player's skill
- Each player's race strength
Let's let Allens's skill = "A" and his race strength = "B"
Let's let Charlie's skill = "C" and his race strength = "D"
After playing a long series of games, each player won exactly 50% of their games.
If we conclude from these games that AB = CD, then it must follow that:
1) A = C, Therefore Allen and Charlie have equal skill.
2) B = D, Therefore, Allen and Charlie's races are equally balanced.
Poll: True or False?Both statements are false. (22) 92% Both statements are true. (2) 8% Statement 1 is true only. (0) 0% Statement 2 is true only. (0) 0% 24 total votes Your vote: True or False? (Vote): Statement 1 is true only.
(Vote): Statement 2 is true only.
(Vote): Both statements are true.
(Vote): Both statements are false.
|
On April 29 2011 07:04 jdseemoreglass wrote: A TL MATH QUIZ!!!Two players play a game of Starcraft 2. One player is named Allen. The other player is named Charlie. When they play, their resulting win ratio against each other will be a function of two variables: - Each player's skill - Each player's race strength Let's let Allens's skill = "A" and his race strength = "B" Let's let Charlie's skill = "C" and his race strength = "D" After playing a long series of games, each player won exactly 50% of their games. If we conclude from these games that AB = CD, then it must follow that: 1) A = C, Therefore Allen and Charlie have equal skill. 2) B = D, Therefore, Allen and Charlie's races are equally balanced. Poll: True or False?Both statements are false. (22) 92% Both statements are true. (2) 8% Statement 1 is true only. (0) 0% Statement 2 is true only. (0) 0% 24 total votes Your vote: True or False? (Vote): Statement 1 is true only.
(Vote): Statement 2 is true only.
(Vote): Both statements are true.
(Vote): Both statements are false.
If you're trying to imply zerg has a 50% win rate because zerg players are simply better at the game, no dice.
In the example in the poll, both statements are false because it is possible that B>D but there remains a 50% winrate because C>A. However were we to change A to mean all protoss players and C to mean all zerg players, it becomes statistically very unlikely that C>A because of the size of the sample pool. We can safely make the assumption that in terms of skill A is roughly equal to C, an assumption we cannot make when A and C are 2 people only.
|
On April 29 2011 07:04 jdseemoreglass wrote:+ Show Spoiler + A TL MATH QUIZ!!!Two players play a game of Starcraft 2. One player is named Allen. The other player is named Charlie. When they play, their resulting win ratio against each other will be a function of two variables: - Each player's skill - Each player's race strength Let's let Allens's skill = "A" and his race strength = "B" Let's let Charlie's skill = "C" and his race strength = "D" After playing a long series of games, each player won exactly 50% of their games. If we conclude from these games that AB = CD, then it must follow that: 1) A = C, Therefore Allen and Charlie have equal skill. 2) B = D, Therefore, Allen and Charlie's races are equally balanced. Poll: True or False?Both statements are false. (22) 92% Both statements are true. (2) 8% Statement 1 is true only. (0) 0% Statement 2 is true only. (0) 0% 24 total votes Your vote: True or False? (Vote): Statement 1 is true only.
(Vote): Statement 2 is true only.
(Vote): Both statements are true.
(Vote): Both statements are false.
Even though AB=CD, if A=2, B=0.5, C=1, and D=1 the equation would be 2(0.5)=1(1). The result is 1=1.
In this case, AB=CD, but A=/=C and B=/=D. Basically this is a variation of "All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares."
On topic, this interview was almost certainly mistranslated. Don't take anything for a fact.
|
Nothing unexpected in this interview. Part of his job is not to overreact so it makes sense he would temper most of his statements.
The only thing I care about now regarding HotS is what the new units will be. I expect a single new unit for each race in multiplayer.
|
On April 29 2011 07:22 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2011 07:04 jdseemoreglass wrote: A TL MATH QUIZ!!!Two players play a game of Starcraft 2. One player is named Allen. The other player is named Charlie. When they play, their resulting win ratio against each other will be a function of two variables: - Each player's skill - Each player's race strength Let's let Allens's skill = "A" and his race strength = "B" Let's let Charlie's skill = "C" and his race strength = "D" After playing a long series of games, each player won exactly 50% of their games. If we conclude from these games that AB = CD, then it must follow that: 1) A = C, Therefore Allen and Charlie have equal skill. 2) B = D, Therefore, Allen and Charlie's races are equally balanced. Poll: True or False?Both statements are false. (22) 92% Both statements are true. (2) 8% Statement 1 is true only. (0) 0% Statement 2 is true only. (0) 0% 24 total votes Your vote: True or False? (Vote): Statement 1 is true only.
(Vote): Statement 2 is true only.
(Vote): Both statements are true.
(Vote): Both statements are false.
If you're trying to imply zerg has a 50% win rate because zerg players are simply better at the game, no dice. In the example in the poll, both statements are false because it is possible that B>D but there remains a 50% winrate because C>A. However were we to change A to mean all protoss players and C to mean all zerg players, it becomes statistically very unlikely that C>A because of the size of the sample pool. We can safely make the assumption that in terms of skill A is roughly equal to C, an assumption we cannot make when A and C are 2 people only.
What you fail to realize is that blizzard takes into account a player's "skill" when matchmaking, but that skill assessment is based primarily on the players win/loss rate relative to his opponents. So there is in fact no way to determine the actual skill of ANY player when you are using a loaded die as your basis for comparison.
Allen and Charlie could play the game forever, you will never be able to determine which has more skill and which race is stronger. It is simply impossible to solve for two variables in a single equation like that. That's the point I am trying to make.
The people who are more likely to reach an approximation of skill, and therefore balance, are the ones who do not take a purely mathematical approach to a matchup and instead look at subjective factors, like multi-tasking, macro, strategic decisions, etc. It's impossible to make progress relying on win rate numbers.
And on a side note I don't think it is too far-fetched to claim that a population of one race will be more skilled than another. For example, players who are new to RTS and starting on the campaign will be more likely to choose Terran. I know for a fact the majority of TLer's are Zerg players also. Maybe because people recognize in Broodwar the things that makes a player particularly good, such as strong macro, scouting, and reactive play, all of which form the foundation for the Zerg race.
|
Do people who actually play this game actually believe that control of armies doesn't materially affect the outcome on a routine basis? There are of course certain unit compositions and styles which are easier to control than others, but that is true of every game. The easier to control styles will predominate in early periods of a game's existence. But the harder to play styles are often also stronger, and will predominate in the long run. This is not guaranteed, unfortunately, but no one has enough information yet to say that it is assuredly not the case either.
I think unit interactions in SC2 are pretty complicated in a lot of cases, certainly common ones anyway. TvZ is almost all army control now and PvZ is getting there. Pure stalker is supposed to lose to roach hydra, but can win with good micro. Good burrow movement micro can do a lot to deal with force fields, as well as the benefits of using tactical baneling drops in combat. Otherwise, the prevalence of multi-prong attacks in ZvP recently shows that the same units are being used in different ways strategically and producing different results. Infestors are also a great example of a unit that can either turn the course of a battle in your favor or completely fail with bad micro and they are being used extensively in all Zerg match-ups now.
I just think some people have a tendency to complain, and oddly these people are not usually those who have a reason to complain about anything, making them all the more unbearable to listen to. This is an interview that has been translated twice (from English to Mandarin and back to English) and yet still people erupt into some kind of misplaced righteous indignation that makes no sense whatsoever.
|
I can't wait to see Day9s positive spin on this interview and a 'trust blizzard' pep talk, lol.
The problem is they are focusing too much on the ladder. To even consider master league in balance discussion is a joke. I'm a master level player and I'd lose to any sponsored pro 9/10 times regardless of races. The skill gap is massive between masters and the highest level.
Not to mention many high level players use ladder as practice or to try builds leading to silly loses etc. They need to pay more attention to high level tournaments by actually watching the games play out, not simply looking at the results.
|
I honestly can't imagine why Blizz even put Browder in charge in balancing the game. All the CnC and LotR games that he was involved in are so freaking inbalanced, it only got bettter once he left EA LA and CnC3:Tiberium Wars was a fcuk ton better than the previous ones.
User was banned for this post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
