| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Anomandaris
Afghanistan440 Posts
Discussing how to discuss balance wtf. All those lower leagues play the game wrong, and are insignificant for balance. The only one which you should watch are GM and maybe tournament results. Altough they sometimes qq, high level players try non stop new things out and reinvent the matchup. Non believes seriously in imbalance. I guess some people are impressed when they see some math... | ||
|
qazadex
Australia473 Posts
On May 20 2011 16:17 Essentia wrote: Ok, then explain why the game shouldn't be balanced around pro play/ It's not that the game shouldn't be balanced against pro play, its that anyone with ~80% win ration is a statistical outlier. Their skill is above the other competitors by a significant enough margin that they cannot be used. | ||
|
Holy_AT
Austria978 Posts
If you are actually amazed then explain why, because with that sort of statement I can only come to the conclusion that you are not able to understand what the thread opener is writing about and therefore your mind is blown ? It would be nice to read about more educated opinions then just 1 sentence, it does not need to be highly detailed but "mind blown" and "golfclap" make me feel bad. | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
- Even if the game has 1/3 of each race at every level. It doesn't mean it's "balanced". Balance is much more than that. - ZvZ has a 50% win ratio. But often times the winner is the one who got a lucky coin flip in the build order battle. And not the most skilled player. Does that fit your definition of the word "balanced"? Opinions will vary. - SC2, like every other game in history, does NOT use objective math to "calculate" balance. There is no formula where you put in variables and find out how much damage a stalker should do - SC2, like any other game. Is balanced through brute force. You put a random value, test it, if it seems imba, you change it out of pure intuition. There's zero science in this. - It is mathematically impossible to achieve perfect mathematical balance with this brute force approach. - Only solution would be remake a game from scratch. With balance in mind since start. And calculate balance (once we define what that is) before designing the game. Then make the game around this balanced model. ie.: completely remake sc2 - Of course blizzard will never do this. So we will never have perfect balance. We can only hope for "balanced enough" (like many would argue bw is) - Realistically, considering the brute force approach. Our best bet is have as many balance-test iterations as possible. The easiest way to do this is to balance through designing maps (which is about ~50% of what balances the game), instead of patching. Just like BW is being rebalanced by kespa mappers after blizzard stopped patching | ||
|
Waking
United States46 Posts
On May 20 2011 16:02 jalstar wrote: There are very few players (relatively) with 70-80% W/L ratios, so the best players outside those ratios will face ~50% ratio players most of the time, and if they're truly better they'll have a higher than 50% win rate against those. Over hundreds of games the better players should have a higher winrate unless 70-80% win ratio players are literally laddering all the time. How much math have you taken, OP? By your post I'm guessing you're a second-year math undergrad, or maybe an engineering/science major. No need to insult the guy. If player skill between high masters and grandmasters scale in a nonlinear way with points, then you will get a situation where high masters have less than 50% ratio. Not that hard to understand. | ||
|
NastyMarine
United States1252 Posts
| ||
|
omisa
United States494 Posts
On May 20 2011 16:17 Jombozeus wrote: Cool, so we have reached a conclusion that the OP is wrong despite also being amazing. Doublethink it is! It seems you have reached a conclusion of your own. But this sort of bickering is quite off topic, lets keep discussion on topic.  | ||
|
forSeohyun
504 Posts
On May 20 2011 16:24 qazadex wrote: It's not that the game shouldn't be balanced against pro play, its that anyone with ~80% win ration is a statistical outlier. Their skill is above the other competitors by a significant enough margin that they cannot be used. If you want to balance the game statistically you have to use either all or a number of randomly selected players from a league or from the game as whole. This depends on a) if the balance is linear or not, and if it's not b) who do you want to balance it for. You could select randomly a equal (high enough) number of Z,V,T's in GM-league and find the difference in mean rank or win ratio. If the imbalances are not linear you have to sacrifice balance for some players, otherwise it's just fine using statistics of "pro play"- | ||
|
BeastofManju
United States79 Posts
What about map imbalances? How does maps win/loss ratios play into all of this? And 2nd question... Let's just assume that it is found that 1 race is OP or UP. How should one go about pinpointing the unit/mechinic that is the source of this imbalance? | ||
|
omisa
United States494 Posts
On May 20 2011 16:17 Essentia wrote: Ok, then explain why the game shouldn't be balanced around pro play/ There is no real way of objectively balancing the game to just the pro scene, assuming there is an imbalance. Just because it is considered top level play, does not mean it is acceptable to "balance" the game over it. I do agree that it is crucial to look at top level play for balance issues but to actually make assumptions of imbalance solely regarding pro play would be quite, nonsensical. | ||
|
DestroManiak
257 Posts
For a start, I believe that beginning with the idea of imbalance is the wrong way to start. What a lot of people do is begin with the idea of imbalance, and then seek data to back up their opinion. ![[image loading]](http://youchew.net/wiki/images/f/fd/Slow-Clap.gif) One should always refrain from confirmation bias. | ||
|
paperwing
49 Posts
| ||
|
Jombozeus
China1014 Posts
On May 20 2011 17:07 paperwing wrote: Good post, agree on harsher punishments by mods for obviously unfounded, or obviously low-quality criticisms So you are a person with 4 posts, with absolutely content in this post, asking for mods to do your bidding by banning people who have contributed much more than you, and have given a structured argument against the OP? | ||
|
Grohg
United States243 Posts
Theorycrafting, even in the context of balance, will inevitably break down once too many variables are left without being operationally defined. This is especially true when dealing with skill. How do you accurately operationalize skill? Skill is loosely defined as it is and it would be hard to decide arbitrary values to use as means of measurement (think of how the social sciences define Happiness or Anger). In a closed study, the efficacy or internal validity might be extremely high. However, once parameters are no longer clearly defined outside of the study, the external validity and ability to generalize to any other study is shot to hell. I think the idea itself is actually a refreshing way to approach balance but there would need to be an overhaul to the method's core to eliminate confounding variables or bias. I have too many other concerns to list out but that's probably just my compulsive personality kicking in wanting a way to eventually break everything down in to binary. | ||
|
AbInitio
United States4 Posts
Obviously this analysis cannot simply be directly applied and sweeping conclusions made, but it is arguably the first step that one would take to try and rigorously analyze the game. | ||
|
Comogury
United States412 Posts
On May 20 2011 16:21 Anomandaris wrote: Meh, this kind of posts is (nearly) useless imo, and mistaken in a couple of points. Discussing how to discuss balance wtf. All those lower leagues play the game wrong, and are insignificant for balance. The only one which you should watch are GM and maybe tournament results. Altough they sometimes qq, high level players try non stop new things out and reinvent the matchup. Non believes seriously in imbalance. I guess some people are impressed when they see some math... I don't know what you mean by "play the game wrong." If there really was an imbalance, I am pretty sure that it would show in all levels of play, not just in grandmasters and tournaments. So why not lump them in, too? | ||
|
ru.meta
Russian Federation88 Posts
| ||
|
Regretful
Sweden91 Posts
I for one would like to see more analysis from you. | ||
|
Blasts
Netherlands99 Posts
On May 20 2011 18:18 Comogury wrote: I don't know what you mean by "play the game wrong." If there really was an imbalance, I am pretty sure that it would show in all levels of play, not just in grandmasters and tournaments. So why not lump them in, too? On the lower levels players make to many mistakes to blame losses or wins on "balance". But I think there are far too many factors to count in for when talking about balance, not to mention that nobody knows for sure what balance is. Or if balance should be for the pro's or the whole ladder. | ||
|
Regretful
Sweden91 Posts
On May 20 2011 18:32 ru.meta wrote: Could you explain what exactly matrix like [27 20 20 20 13] means? I think he did. It is the spread of people in the leagues. 27 bronze 20 s 20 g 20 pl and 13 diamond | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
BASILISK vs Shopify Rebellion
Team Liquid vs Team Falcon
OSC
CrankTV Team League
Shopify Rebellion vs Team Falcon
BASILISK vs Team Liquid
Replay Cast
The PondCast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
WardiTV Invitational
MaNa vs Gerald
Rogue vs GuMiho
ByuN vs Spirit
herO vs Solar
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
