|
EDIT: NOTE***I Mean This as General Theory...NOT a Discussion of Actual Balance of SC2 Races, nor a discussion on the SotG argument itself***
I was watching State of the Game tonight, and while in the past, I've generally just ignored IdrA's or anyone else's balance whining, taking it as the 'venting' that Day9 tends to characterize it as.
However, as they got to talking, the discussion finally hit a point where they weren't really discussing SC2 itself anymore, and speaking more about what balance should actually look like in any strategy game.
IdrA pointed out that we don't really have a good definition of what we even mean by balance, and that causes some of the issues.
I'd like to suggest some of the things I consider Elements of Balance in a game like SC2, without actually getting into how the races, units etc... actually work, but rather what does a balanced game look like, and is it the same for everyone?
1) Even Matches vs RPS - Does each Race need an equal ability vs. each other race?
While simple, and most people will likely agree, it is important in this game that All races have an equal chance to win against all races.
Rock Paper Scissors is 'Balanced' because rock beats scissors, but then scissors beats paper.
In SC2, that's not acceptable; If Zerg Beats Terran, Terran beats Protoss and Protoss beats Zerg (just examples) then the game is not balanced, even if this actually leads to a 50% win rate for each race.
My Thought: Yes, Every single Match must be balanced, not just the game overall.
2) Difficulty Level Balancing - In order for the game to be 'Balanced' does it have to be balanced on All skill levels?
Pros and Masters may be able to use units more effectively, or execute more complex plans than lower ranked players, And a Platinum/Gold will be able to do things better than a Bronze.
So is it required that races be equally playable on all skill levels? If one race actually does require less micro, or has easier macro mechanics...is that ok?
Something that may be a total non-issue on the high-end of the game may be very difficult for lower people. Or on the flip side, something that requires a lot of micro and 6 different units may be totally dominating the pro scene, but be a total non-issue in lower leagues due to inability to execute it.
My Thought: I do not believe the game should be balanced for every skill level, but should actually be balanced with competitive play in mind. If imbalance exists at the bronze level, or even my own level, I can live with that. If it exists at the professional level, it ruins the sport.
3) Strategy Difficulty Balance - In order for the game to be balanced, do individual strategies need to have counters of comparable difficulty?
Some strategies appear to be much easier to execute than they are to defend. The Strategy may require use of a single unit, very little micro, or a pre-set build order.
The Defence may require a high degree of scouting, very active micro, and clever adapting of your current build order. So is this ok? Is the game balanced if a specific strategy which is easy to do, causes a player with a much lower 'skill' level, to rise above peers? If Simple '1a' or 'Cheese' strats exist that are very hard to stop, but easy to do, can the game be balanced?
And further to that, If these do exist, should all races have equal opportunity to these Cheese strats?
My Thought: Cheese or easy strategies are ok, however, should be the type of thing that is easily countered at high levels. There should not exist any strategy that could be executed by say, a Platinum/Diamond, that a Code A GSL player should not be able to simply stop 99 times out of 100.
4) Timing Balances - Is it ok for one race to be strong Early Game, while another is strong Late Game?
There seems to be a lot of thinking that Race X must halt Race Y before they get to a certain tech level, or a certain critical mass. Or That Race Y has much stronger early game options vs Race Z, but that if Race Z survives, they will they be dominant.
So is it Ok to have a 'Early', 'Mid' and 'Late' Race?
In some sense 'I must kill him before he gets X amount of bases' makes sense as a strategic goal... and it could even actually be balanced, in that the 3 races actually have an equal chance of winning the game...but that they all tend to do it during their 'Strong' period.
But is this really balance the way we want it? While it may be fair in some sense, does it offer good gameplay?
My Thought: The 3 races should be equally viable at most points in the game.
While certain 'timings' will occur based on specific build orders and so forth, You should not have one race dominating Early Game while another dominates Late Game, even if it results in a 50/50 game split at high levels.
5) Initiative balance - Is it ok that one race is always 'reacting' while another is always initiating?
Similar to the game stages topic, is it ok to have one race always set the tone, or have build orders or early threats that force the hand of the other race? Or should each have equivalent opportunity to take the initiative?
If you have one race forcing certain courses of action or responses all the time, it can limit the creativity of the other races, and shape the game in that player's favour.
My Thought: In this case, I am ok with some races being more reactionary or initiating by design, provided they are given the tools to adequately do so, in the form of scouting or reaction time, and are not held to single paths of reaction.
6) Risk vs Reward Balance - Should powerful or easy strategies have similar Risk vs Reward profiles?
There appear to be some strategies which are very strong, but have a big risk if they fail. Others seem to have high reward, but transition easily into a defense upon failure. (ie. Initial strategy is very mineral intensive but deadly, but could then be transformed into a Gas heavy recovery strategy)
On a broader scale, some builds, or army compositions are very jack-of-all-trades, while others are deadly against certain compositions, but would fail completely against others.
Should risky builds be easily punishable? Should Safe compositions be easily destroyed by Risky/Extreme ones?
My Thought: I really think this is actually the crux of it people are having trouble with. You hear from a lot of high skilled players, they don't want to 'flip a coin' and make an army composition that directly counters something they haven't for sure scouted. So they tend towards middle of the road armies, which can lose to extreme ones.
I believe that true balance comes down to making it so players 'flipping a coin' are punished a lot for failure, enough so that it does not become a long term viable strategy to do. A Failure at cheese should be almost invariably a game losing proposition, while it currently isn't. And the use of a very extreme hard counter army composition should fail incredibly hard if it doesn't hit the thing it is intend to hit.
While these things can't be eliminated, creative strategies should be encouraged while the coin flip type strategies shouldn't be.
7) Direct vs Indirect - Should Balance be based on armies hitting each other, or the whole match?
Armies at 200/200 seem to differ in strength, but some of these can be rebuilt faster, are cheaper, are more adaptable, less mobile etc... So the question here is, should things be even in actual fighting ability, or is it ok for one race to have an economy or replenishment advantage while another has a direct combat advantage, or a defensive advanatage?
Many see the evasive non-direct engagements as more difficult to execute, but this difficulty isn't as much an issue at the high end. Being able to '1a' your way to victory is annoying to many people, but often the unwritten counter part to that is that the opponent '1a'd right back into them too.
So is it alright to have balance that does not actually equal military balance?
My Thought: I think this is not only fine, but really makes the game what it is supposed to be. The game cannot simply be both sides building an army and crashing them together. But I think this is the area that frustrates people the most... People simply want to be able to walk their army directly in...and when that fails, either from hitting a superior army, or being the 'superior' army and getting picked apart by annoying spellcaster units, they get very frustrated.
Overall Balance Perceptions: I really think we need to all know what we think the answer to these questions are in order to properly discuss balance.
I also think we need to know from our own perspectives when we cry imbalance....is it actually imbalanced, or is it balanced just fine...simply not balanced in a way that lets us play they way we want to play.
These are the elements I think we need to be considering when discussing what is or isn't balanced. It's obviously not an exhaustive list, and is largely my opinion.
I'm wondering what others think are key open questions on what balance should look like?
NOTE: I took a lot of care to try and avoid even giving examples or a race, unit or strategy, because I'm much less interested in what the current state of balance actually is, focusing more of theoretically, what are the components of balance? So I'd hate to see it devolve to something useless by people getting into a discussion on actual "this race vs that race" crap.
Also, I'm a Random.
|
great post, very in depth and interesting, the real problem with the game at this point comes from weak design, in the sense that the strengths of each race aren't really evident, and aren't really there some of the times.
that creates in my opinion most of the problems, one evident case that blizzard is trying to fix at the moment is the fact that 4 gate is to easy to accomplish in comparison to how hard it is to defend. it's a cool case because it happens in the mirror match, and what it does is it creates an obvious problem that forces most people to do one of two things, you either do the 4 gate or u defend the 4 gate, and even tho it's obvious balance since u always get 50% win rate on both sides since it's a mirror, it creates bad gameplay and very simple games that people don't really like to watch.
Game design shouldn't dictate balance, but it shouldn't be abandoned, if the game is to proceed to become a great game it needs to have become sorted out, that in itself will fix most of the game, cause at the highest level it starts to not really matter how hard it is to defend, because after some time the pros will be able to execute perfect always, the problem then arises when game design doesn't favor the better player, if a strategy is so strong it kills a player out right it should also fail miserably when it is correctly countered and loose out right.
|
The problem with balance in such a game is that everyone has a bias. IdrA really showed this today by claiming that he cant be offensive with Banelings and whatever Zerg units. Banelings very very often are used to bust a Terran wall-in (something said Zerg did complain about as well) or even right-click on a Planetary Fortress and eliminate it and there is NOTHING a Terran can do to prevent it. Yet the "venting" goes on and is declared as "balance discussion" by IdrA.
People really need to take themselves less seriously to be objective and thus progamers who are playing only one race should NEVER EVER whine about balance issues. They might be asked about a certain detail of balance, but judging "A versus B" should be left to others who dont have any stake in it.
Btw. ... Zerg being incapable to wall in is just a map issue. If the initial creep reached up to the ramp they could do it. Obviously its kinda stupid to do that as a Zerg because they have few ranged units early on, but Spine Crawlers can be nice to wall-in as well.
|
Idra's venting is usually correct to a certain degree in my opinion, the only thing problem I have is that he blows things out of proportion quite often. I didn't get to watch the state of the game you guys are discussing, so maybe Idra was just whining during this one, but that's how I usually feel about Idra's opinions on balance.
With that being said, these are the types of balancing "points" I've thought of for a while and I'd agree with most of them, especially when it comes to balancing around high level gameplay. If they try to make everyone (bronze-GM) happy, they'll most likely end up failing to appease any of us.
On May 04 2011 20:53 Rabiator wrote:
The problem with balance in such a game is that everyone has a bias. IdrA really showed this today by claiming that he cant be offensive with Banelings and whatever Zerg units. Banelings very very often are used to bust a Terran wall-in (something said Zerg did complain about as well) or even right-click on a Planetary Fortress and eliminate it and there is NOTHING a Terran can do to prevent it. Yet the "venting" goes on and is declared as "balance discussion" by IdrA.
People really need to take themselves less seriously to be objective and thus progamers who are playing only one race should NEVER EVER whine about balance issues. They might be asked about a certain detail of balance, but judging "A versus B" should be left to others who dont have any stake in it.
Btw. ... Zerg being incapable to wall in is just a map issue. If the initial creep reached up to the ramp they could do it. Obviously its kinda stupid to do that as a Zerg because they have few ranged units early on, but Spine Crawlers can be nice to wall-in as well.
I'd have to disagree with this nearly completely. Sacrificing a huge number of banelings to a few tanks to kill a planetary IS the Terran doing something about it. A few tanks can make baneling right clicks quite inefficient. Baneling busting is also a lot different than the aggressive play offered to P or T, as it is usually quite all-in, although I think we'll start seeing more aggressive Z strategies (like the roach/speedling pressure vs. P) come to fruition in the near future.
I also disagree that balancing should be left to those with no stake in it. People that aren't capable of playing at the highest level won't have the same capability to judge what is truly broken and what is not, at least not as proficiently as someone who is a top player. Obviously progamers will be biased (just about everyone will have some sort of bias, like you said) which is why Blizzard should be pooling lots of opinions from a good number of top level players and seeing what the general consensus is on many issues, and then deciding from there.
At the end of the day though, Blizzard will handle balancing in whatever way they see fit, and I honestly can't complain about balance as is when I think about how the Beta was...
|
I did not read everything since it is a lot of text here. Imho IdrA's point is valid.
He says a less skilled player can be as successful as great player if he uses protoss.
i see it like this. Alexander (history figure) was awesome cuz of his battle strats and war skills. but if you put me in that age with an AK47 with infinite ammo, i would conquer the whole fkn world as well with waaaay less skill.
|
On May 04 2011 21:35 centinel4 wrote:I did not read everything since it is a lot of text here. Imho IdrA's point is valid. He says a less skilled player can be as successful as great player if he uses protoss. i see it like this. Alexander (history figure) was awesome cuz of his battle strats and war skills. but if you put me in that age with an AK47 with infinite ammo, i would conquer the whole fkn world as well with waaaay less skill.
Part of IdrA's argument has to do with the fact that Zerg needs more time to "get going" and thus is incapable to apply pressure early on. They have to decide between Drones and units and this is a RACIAL thing which will NEVER change. If he has a problem with that he needs to switch races and stop whining about it. So he does NOT have a point.
Zerg are a defensive race early on and you need to be able to defend until the point where your ability to expand either your economy or your army becomes greater than that of your opponent. Apparently he wants to have it all at the same time and that doesnt work. Too bad IdrA seems too narrow sighted to admit this to himself.
The reason why Spine Crawlers are so slow in being created is simply ZvZ ... you could have lots of boring games which are just decided by who is getting up his Spawning Pool first so he can build Spine Crawlers in his opponents base. I do think the Zerg should be given an option to root a Spine Crawler faster for paying 25 minerals (after all "moving" a bunker costs 25 minerals after the next patch(*1)) and that might be nice as an emergency measure.
(*1) Personally I think they should return the same percentage of money for a salvaged bunker as it has hit points, i.e. a bunker at 50% health returns only 50% money.
|
Actually IdrAs was saying the problem was zerg couldn't prepare for all the possible types of aggression that could hit them due to poor scouting option
@op
nice post, you bring a lot of food for thought
|
Just before this drifts further in the direction it currently is.
I'd Really like this to be only About 'Balance' as a Concept....
When I referred to IdrA's arguments...i meant more his 'General Principal' type argument like "You can Either allow a race to scout....Or allow them to blind counter"
Ignore that he was talking about Zerg...because if this prinicipal is true...then it's true for Zerg, Terran, Protoss, Nod, GDI, Orcs, Night Elves and Cybrans.
The moment things start being "well Zerg can do this...or should do this, or they should change it to this..." it'll just become some QQ-fest.
Think of This more as discussing Balance in a Generic RTS with 3 Races...not a discussion of Protoss, Zerg and Terran.
But what things does a game like this need to be balanced around?
|
People need to actually read the post and not respond to the first sentence. This thread is already turning into a discussion of the OTHER topics discussed on SotG - and there is already a SotG thread...
In Game Theory terms, I'm pretty sure "balance" just refers to a point when people have an equal chance of winning. This does not mean that every strategy or every race has to be balanced. "If Zerglings did 50 damage", the entire game could devolve into 6-pooling and everyone would play Zerg. The game would have reached a stable and balanced point.
However, StarCraft 2 players (and game players in general) use the term differently. In order:
1. Even Matches vs RPS: Having all the races balanced is definitely a good game goal. However, it is probably not -required- for balance.
2. Difficulty Level Balancing: No. It's basically impossible to do.
3. Strategy Difficulty Balance: In an ideal world, yes. However, it is probably not going to happen and -certainly- didn't happen in StarCraft 1.
4. Timing Balances: Yes. You said "strong" not unstoppable, so that should be fine.
5. Initiative Balance: Yes, that's fine. People know what they're getting into with the races. It is good that they have different methods of attacking.
6. Risk vs Reward Balance: Yes, they should. This is actually the #1 problem with StarCraft 2 at the moment. Risky play is too good. However, I'm not sure if this a problem Blizzard should fix or something that will solve itself. The beginning of Brood War was exactly like this, but it evolved.
7. Direct vs Indirect: For the sake of spectators, it is probably better that it is based around the entire match. For the sake of balance, probably doesn't matter.
On May 04 2011 22:10 EnderSword wrote:
Just before this drifts further in the direction it currently is.
I'd Really like this to be only About 'Balance' as a Concept....
When I referred to IdrA's arguments...i meant more his 'General Principal' type argument like "You can Either allow a race to scout....Or allow them to blind counter"
Ignore that he was talking about Zerg...because if this prinicipal is true...then it's true for Zerg, Terran, Protoss, Nod, GDI, Orcs, Night Elves and Cybrans.
The moment things start being "well Zerg can do this...or should do this, or they should change it to this..." it'll just become some QQ-fest.
Think of This more as discussing Balance in a Generic RTS with 3 Races...not a discussion of Protoss, Zerg and Terran.
But what things does a game like this need to be balanced around?
You need to put it in big bold letters at the top that this is about general theory and has nothing to do with IdrA or Day9, that was just what got you thinking about it. People are going to run this topic into the ground, which is sad because it is a great idea.
|
On May 04 2011 22:12 dcemuser wrote:
People need to actually read the post and not respond to the first sentence. This thread is already turning into a discussion of the OTHER topics discussed on SotG - and there is already a SotG thread...
In Game Theory terms, I'm pretty sure "balance" just refers to a point when people have an equal chance of winning. This does not mean that every strategy or every race has to be balanced. "If Zerglings did 50 damage", the entire game could devolve into 6-pooling and everyone would play Zerg. The game would have reached a stable and balanced point.
However, StarCraft 2 players (and game players in general) use the term differently.
ya, we use it in the sense "balanced while keeping a reasonable game"
|
On May 04 2011 22:15 Krissam wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2011 22:12 dcemuser wrote:
People need to actually read the post and not respond to the first sentence. This thread is already turning into a discussion of the OTHER topics discussed on SotG - and there is already a SotG thread...
In Game Theory terms, I'm pretty sure "balance" just refers to a point when people have an equal chance of winning. This does not mean that every strategy or every race has to be balanced. "If Zerglings did 50 damage", the entire game could devolve into 6-pooling and everyone would play Zerg. The game would have reached a stable and balanced point.
However, StarCraft 2 players (and game players in general) use the term differently. ya, we use it in the sense "balanced while keeping a reasonable game"
Which is why this thread exists and why it is such a great idea!
Here we can define exactly what IS "a reasonable game". The points the OP brought up are the core of questions and concerns commonly raised on these forums.
|
Russian Federation142 Posts
I think you missed one:
Macro Balance
The ability for each race to enter the late game on even footing if they choose to macro. This is very important for terran, especially in the TvZ matchup. Terran just can't enter the late game on even footing with the zerg and has to rely on early pushes doing terrible damage. And if that happens, 200 supply terran army is underwhelming. Even mech. Protoss on the other hand seems to do fine in a macro game against zerg. Sure zerg may be economically ahead of the protoss, but the protoss death ball does fine vs maxed zerg.
I guess it can be defined as the ability for all races to play nr20 and still be evenly matched in the late game.
For the record, terran had this macro problem in BW and I think that it's perfectly ok. SC2 needs the timing cheese race.
|
I guess it can be defined as the ability for all races to play nr20 and still be evenly matched in the late game.
That one does bring up an interesting point, yes...
Should all 3 Races be able to play the 'No Rush 20' and be even after those 20 minutes?
I would argue that they probably Should Not in fact be even after 20 minutes of No attacking.
If one race is supposed to be an 'Early aggression' type race, but that player chose to not do any early aggression at all, and Macro instead...than isn't that simply a poor strategic decision?
It may be that if Race Z is great at Macroing, provided he is left alone...And You're Race X...the best strategy is to Not leave him alone.
I'd say it's ok if one race does Macro better than the others, provided the others have ways of stopping that race from doing it.
So, Yes, I think 'Should Economic ability be equal?' is a fair Balance point question...I would say it doesn't real have to be equal in order to balance the game.
|
On May 04 2011 18:58 EnderSword wrote:
1) Even Matches vs RPS - Does each Race need an equal ability vs. each other race?
Yes certainly. Think everyone agrees on this.
2) Difficulty Level Balancing - In order for the game to be 'Balanced' does it have to be balanced on All skill levels?
No, only on the professional level. However, for the overall health of the game, a degree of balance is required on lower levels as well. I'd say 40-60% winrates at lower levels are acceptable, but at the competitive level 45-55% is needed. Obviously ideally it's exactly 50%, but with an ever-shifting metagame this doesn't really happen.
3) Strategy Difficulty Balance - In order for the game to be balanced, do individual strategies need to have counters of comparable difficulty?
No. Similar issue to the last one. You don't want bronze players moving up to masters with some simplistic cheese. At the top level though it's pretty much irrelevant - they'll do whatever is best no matter how difficult the execution.
4) Timing Balances - Is it ok for one race to be strong Early Game, while another is strong Late Game?
Disagree here, I think this is OK. A dynamic whereby one race must constantly chip away at another, to prevent them achieving an unstoppable economic or tech level, is fine by me. It mustn't be too extreme though, or games will always look the same and that's kind of boring.
I think this is the beginning of you moving into style issues.
5) Initiative balance - Is it ok that one race is always 'reacting' while another is always initiating?
Again this is style, not balance.
I'm OK with it in moderation, as above. As long as it doesn't make the gameplay horribly predictable.
6) Risk vs Reward Balance - Should powerful or easy strategies have similar Risk vs Reward profiles?
I think the problems you mention are purely because the game is not well figured out. How do you respond to a failed 7rax cheese? How do you respond to a failed proxy rax cheese? A proxy gate? Ask 5 people - even pros - and you'll get 5 different answers. Once the optimum (or very close to it) is known, these cheeses will be punished severely. This dynamic is illustrated by how cheeses are ever changing as responses are discovered. Eventually, pretty much every cheese will be understood and people can punish it effectively.
7) Direct vs Indirect - Should Balance be based on armies hitting each other, or the whole match?
Absolutely 100% indirect. I cannot comprehend anyone thinking otherwise. The alternative is just horribly, horribly boring.
Again I think this is stylistic though. Either approach produces balance - just one approach is boooring.
Overall Balance Perceptions: I really think we need to all know what we think the answer to these questions are in order to properly discuss balance.
I also think we need to know from our own perspectives when we cry imbalance....is it actually imbalanced, or is it balanced just fine...simply not balanced in a way that lets us play they way we want to play.
Yes, I think many people conflate style "issues" with balance. They don't like that, say, a cheese is effective, because they simply don't like cheese as a style. Or they consider a player dropping/harassing "better" simply because they like that style, even if the current matchup/game situation dicates that it is not efficient.
|
Russian Federation142 Posts
Oh, so now you have to figure out an asymmetric balance system where you weigh the ability of one race to damage another in the early game vs the ability of the other race to dominate in the late game. You can't just balance the early game by giving the defending race a solid way of defending themselves against it and call it a day. You have to adjust for the defending race imbalance buildup in the late game. How do you do this? You can't really do this and this is why SC2 will remain imbalanced forever. This is why idra QQ should never be taken seriously.
Regardless of that, I think that blizzard chose a simple approach to this problem. They just destroyed barracks first builds and reaper builds and proxy 2gate. Damn, I think I'm the first person to explain the excuse terrans have to cheese all the time.
e: sorry did I say cheese? I meant economic harass. Economic harass with slight chance of allin.
|
On May 04 2011 22:42 EnderSword wrote:Show nested quote +I guess it can be defined as the ability for all races to play nr20 and still be evenly matched in the late game. Should all 3 Races be able to play the 'No Rush 20' and be even after those 20 minutes?
I would say this is irrelavant to "balance" but very relevant to "game design".
Game Design vs Balance
Balance refers to the ability to win for either race. In NA the meta game seems quiet "balanced" after seeing this thread..
Game Design refers to the ebb and flow of the game. This is what I think most players actually want improved. If race X has a really easy strategy of defending early until they get an unbeatable composition, and race Y needs to all in before this to win, well that's still "balanced", because race Y has at least 1 viable strategy. This however, is poor design, every game would result in race Y trying to all in, while race X perfomrs the same build in every game.
My Thoughts On IdrA's Comments
In spoiler tags because it is not he direct topic of this thread, but it is no doubt the sub topic
+ Show Spoiler +Hmm. Terran all ins are very, very strong against Zerg. What would make IdrA happy? Either he finds a build that is suitable against everything (I think this build probably exists, but is unknown) or he gets some sort of overlord speed buff. I would be fine with appeasing IdrA with:
Overlord Speed at Hatchery
Slight buff to unupgraded Overlord speed
Hydralisks at hatchery tech (might require further tweaks): would assist against banshees and the marauder part of marauder/hellion
However I think IdrA is ignoring some potential responses. He could himself respond to a Terran all in with an all in. Rushing to overlord speed is probably possible, however it might require something along the lines of taking 2 gases ASAP, sacrificing some zerglings early, which in turn may require an extra spine crawler, however this is probably OK because if it results in defending the all in, the Terran player would be quiet behind.
IdrA is ignoring one key element of the Zerg race. Unattacked, Zerg is "ahead". Zerg gets ahead while macroing, and the Terran player tries to repeatedly nullify this advantage using relatively "overpowerd" units. So if the Zerg player gets "behind" by playing "too safe", well there not really "behind", they are "less ahead", so if the safety they buy ends up defending the first attack with minimal losses, the Zerg player buys himself enough time to get even more "ahead" then he was before.
The Current "Balance of ZvT"
In my games, I go 2 rax FE every game. Oppurtunities for pressure are with my first 1-8 marines, and then when stim/siege finishes with ~3 tanks.
If I lose my initial group of marines against Zerg because I underestimated the amount of Zerglings he had, or I didnt have the towers so he could see how many marines I was sending, I go into wicked defensive mode, placing 2-3 bunkers on Xel Naga Caverns, and floating my stuff down to make a wall. The Zerg would be wise to not attack, but to take the towers, spread overlords for drops, and take a third base.
If I kill a bunch of units in the middle of the map via a siege tank trap, I still cannot simply 1A into the zerg base. I know that he knows how many units I have and will be creating a response. I also know that should I get caught unsieged that could spell disaster.
I feel like this means my matchups are "balanced" and "well designed". I am a little frustrated with my personal inability to take a third base without doing damage, however, that is because I havent explored many possiblities like bunkers/bunker upgrades and what not.
|
I think (and sorry if it's mentioned, but I missed it) one of the most important element of balance is effort. How much effort does it take to do something vs. how much effort it takes to counter it. Players of two different races might both be given enough tools to fight each other and counter everything, thus you might say they are balanced, but player A must put a lot more effort in (multitasking, executing harder tactics and thinking outside of the box) to effectively counter player B much-easier-to-execute timing attack. In theory they're balanced, because the efficient counter is possible (although not probable due to higher effort required). While a high level player can execute necessary tasks if needed in individual situations, it becomes tiresome and the chances of him messing up raises as the game gets longer and more such situations arise.
Imagine constantly clicking the mouse four times to counter your enemies one click.
|
There should be a way to get yourself in equal or better position if you know the opponents build.
Like 2 rax vs z on close position maps (close pos temple, close pos metalopolis, delta quadrant, steppes of war). That was almost unwinnable for Z and those maps have since been removed in all serious tournaments.
If Z had made enough lings/spines to hold an marine/scv attack, they would be hugely behind economically if T built a fast CC behind the 2 rax.
A similar build that (imho) was imbalanced was the forge expand+a quick 3rd pvz on the old shakuras plateau. It was completley safe, denied scouting any tech choice and got P into the lategame with an unkillable deathball without ever moving out of his base. Not only was it unscoutable, it wasn't even counterable when predicted perfectly. Pylon block denied zergs natural, voids denied any quick 3rd from the Z, and the only thing P had to worry about was defending drops, and keeping an eye on the ramps defending the natural and the 3rd. That map has since been patched.
|
balance is when there is no defenders offenders advantage or different units. So no one wants balance  .
So if you want some excitement you throw things up, add better defending abilitys to the one race and a better defense breaker or defense go arounder to the other race. If you manage to do those things to a not so obvious degree people will love it. And if all your units work with a click, but get better if you micro them, or if there are units that are bad with a click but way better with micro its just more fun.
PS: if you have a super successful game and people expect purrfection, they will be to impation to find out the secrets of the game and just label it as bad. So the more people complain about balance the more borring will the game get <3.
|
In my opinion, much of what the OP says is about fairness. I had always thought of balance essentially as ensuring that no one strategy is more powerful than others so much so that players are more or less forced to play in a specific way in order to win games. Balance in my opinion is about making as many strategies as possible viable. I feel that when somebody says "imbalanced", what they really mean is "unfair". This is just my own interpretation of what the terms mean.
Very interesting post though, OP, which raises some very interesting questions indeed =)
|
Map positioning as well. It's amazing how different TVZ is on Metalopolis close spawn by ground,and cross map. So different.
Great post though.
|
Maps Are indeed an interesting one I left out.
Is It ok that some maps, or some spawning positions 'favor' one race over another?
Should each individual map be completely fair, or it it fine, so long as the entire map pool taken together is fair?
|
On May 05 2011 07:16 EnderSword wrote:
Maps Are indeed an interesting one I left out.
Is It ok that some maps, or some spawning positions 'favor' one race over another?
Should each individual map be completely fair, or it it fine, so long as the entire map pool taken together is fair?
I believe that ladder maps should be allowed to have a race bias, although not having a race be overpowered. (See Lost Temple/The Shattered Temple)
In tournaments, they tend to use customized map pools anyway, so the tournament operators should be the deciders of this, although to be considered a legitimate league, they should probably seek to have the most balance possible.
|
Maps are great for tournaments, because of exactly that. You can actually intentionally design maps to counter perceived imbalances.
For instance if one unit is strong on a type of terrain, tournaments can eliminate maps with that terrain.
I've noticed a tendency for recent maps to have less 'Safe Air' behind the main. Whereas previously maps in general had a lot of space for air units to flee behind the mineral line.
|
On May 04 2011 20:53 Rabiator wrote:
The problem with balance in such a game is that everyone has a bias. IdrA really showed this today by claiming that he cant be offensive with Banelings and whatever Zerg units. Banelings very very often are used to bust a Terran wall-in (something said Zerg did complain about as well) or even right-click on a Planetary Fortress and eliminate it and there is NOTHING a Terran can do to prevent it. Yet the "venting" goes on and is declared as "balance discussion" by IdrA.
People really need to take themselves less seriously to be objective and thus progamers who are playing only one race should NEVER EVER whine about balance issues. They might be asked about a certain detail of balance, but judging "A versus B" should be left to others who dont have any stake in it.
Btw. ... Zerg being incapable to wall in is just a map issue. If the initial creep reached up to the ramp they could do it. Obviously its kinda stupid to do that as a Zerg because they have few ranged units early on, but Spine Crawlers can be nice to wall-in as well.
You are pretty off base. The only time zergs can baneling bust is honestly when terran are lazy and bad. If you scan (easy scouting) a 1 base with baneling, you can make a near unbustable wall. Wall the bottom ramp, or at least choke with two rax, and have a wall on top. Focus fire banelings. Its just terran cry when they have to micro (ie focus fire) or think ahead (ie scan and plan accordingly). Like when terran cry about how good infest is vs marines. Just right click them with your tanks, god forbid you have to micro!
Nothing idra said on sotg was off base. It was pretty simple stuff that is very true. Its not tears, its just the facts. And walling off with zerg is pointless because as you said, we have no ranged units. We could as you said, make spinecrawlers. However, these cannot be used offensively like terran marines or protoss sents can. You sink 1 larva and 150G to make an unoffensive piece of junk. Also walling would be pointless because zerg usually need to be one base up, so walling up and giving up map control would pretty much be a death sentence.
|
On May 04 2011 22:10 EnderSword wrote:
I'd Really like this to be only About 'Balance' as a Concept....
Balance really is a mythical concept which implies there are the same number of sweets on each side of the scale so the kids are treated equally. That is not how Starcraft works and one kid has a piece of fruit cake instead of two chocolate bars on the scales and now the whining begins because kid A doesnt like fruit cake and would rather have the chocolate bars. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence and thus we get a lot of whining and complaints about it, because most people are only on one side of the fence and dont look at the things objectively.
There is only one way to create balance and this is by looking at the success rates at the highest level and look for reasons why race X loses more than the others. Obvioulsy a lot of things affect this success rate, but there have been many games which showed that "hard counters" can be eliminatied by the unit they supposedly counter, if it is done well enough. So the stats of the units are the last things which really affect balance and Blizzard only fiddles around with them to adjust the gameplay in a way which makes rarely used units desirable in certain situations.
Balance really doesnt exist ... only a certain degree of fairness of the game for all races.
On May 05 2011 18:28 Owarida wrote:
You sink 1 larva and 150G to make an unoffensive piece of junk.
For 150 minerals you can also make six Zerglings ... which die rather easily and cost three larvae instead. So a Spine Crawler is much tougher to deal with and will actually save you money and give you two more larvae for Drones.
If you think the Spine Crawler is "unoffensive" that is your problem, but you can still reposition it and creep can still advance on your opponent.
EDIT: Right now NesTea is making offensive Spine Crawlers in the GSL ... against Anypro.Prime who used Forge fast expand. He took out the expansion and some Gateways with that attack.
|
I think the ultimate barometer for balance is the number of viable strategies allowed. All other things, such as difficulty curves, necessarily influence the population of viable strategies, because easier builds procreate more offshoots when skill is applied, while high difficulty builds have far less variability and produce less offshoots. Achievement of build diversity has the most direct correlation to a genuinely interesting game to watch and play.
Balance changes should be under the mindset of whether they increase the net amount of viable strategies or they don't. Obviously a balance between races would be an equivalent population of strategies for each. Should one strategy become too strong, it kills off the potential for other strategies, thus build strength will ultimately even out as a result of builds increasing.
|
On May 05 2011 19:46 Cloak wrote:
I think the ultimate barometer for balance is the number of viable strategies allowed. All other things, such as difficulty curves, necessarily influence the population of viable strategies, because easier builds procreate more offshoots when skill is applied, while high difficulty builds have far less variability and produce less offshoots. Achievement of build diversity has the most direct correlation to a genuinely interesting game to watch and play.
Balance changes should be under the mindset of whether they increase the net amount of viable strategies or they don't. Obviously a balance between races would be an equivalent population of strategies for each. Should one strategy become too strong, it kills off the potential for other strategies, thus build strength will ultimately even out as a result of builds increasing.
I doubt the number of strategies is a good indicator for balance simply because flexibility and macro capability have to be figured in as well and Zerg / Protoss have an advantage over Terrans there for the first and Zerg are absolute masters of the second in the late game. Terrans have an absolutely great mix of units which has a lot of synergy, but if you manage to eliminate one piece from the mix of units the whole breaks. So there are totally different styles to play the game and a mathematical comparison of the number of strategies doesnt work.
Early / mid- / late-game are totally different phases as well, so a purely mathematical comparison of the number of strategies doesnt work.
|
On May 05 2011 20:19 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2011 19:46 Cloak wrote:
I think the ultimate barometer for balance is the number of viable strategies allowed. All other things, such as difficulty curves, necessarily influence the population of viable strategies, because easier builds procreate more offshoots when skill is applied, while high difficulty builds have far less variability and produce less offshoots. Achievement of build diversity has the most direct correlation to a genuinely interesting game to watch and play.
Balance changes should be under the mindset of whether they increase the net amount of viable strategies or they don't. Obviously a balance between races would be an equivalent population of strategies for each. Should one strategy become too strong, it kills off the potential for other strategies, thus build strength will ultimately even out as a result of builds increasing. I doubt the number of strategies is a good indicator for balance simply because flexibility and macro capability have to be figured in as well and Zerg / Protoss have an advantage over Terrans there for the first and Zerg are absolute masters of the second in the late game. Terrans have an absolutely great mix of units which has a lot of synergy, but if you manage to eliminate one piece from the mix of units the whole breaks. So there are totally different styles to play the game and a mathematical comparison of the number of strategies doesnt work. Early / mid- / late-game are totally different phases as well, so a purely mathematical comparison of the number of strategies doesnt work.
I don't know if I agree with your assertion that Terran units are dependant on their diversity. Pure Marauder, pure Marine, and pure Thor are all far more successful than other race equivalents (except Roach) and I think that underlies the reason why Terran can mix and match anything to get a good strategy, it's because of how independently strong and versatile each unit is. Diversity per unit only multiplies the diversity of their interactions.
Flexibility and macro capability are merely branches on a strategy flow chart. A more flexible build would have more off shoots, while the variation in macro styles (long term vs short term) would translate to more builds. It still doesn't add a different parameter to measure by, though. For anybody who's taken Linear Algebra, there'd need to be a variable that's linearly independent of number of builds, but so far all these parameters can be explained in those terms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
