Model for imbalance, with myths - Page 6

On May 20 2011 23:46 Atlare wrote:

No that doesn't work since people would probably not play the game if you were forced random -.-

On May 20 2011 15:00 avilo wrote:
Just because someone made an incredibly long post does not make it mega awesome or even remotely accurate.

The most obvious thing completely wrong with the "post" is to not look at pros for balance. In any RTS game or game you always look at the top level for balance because these are the people playing the game at the highest level and are actively trying to "break the game."

On May 21 2011 02:59 infinity2k9 wrote:


Yeah seriously, not going to quote this all but i don't see why people think this is so particularly great just because it's a shitload of words. By this logic BW isn't balanced well enough cause PvT is easier for P for 99% of people. I can't be bothered to go into this any deeper cause this whole thing is basically useless and something that could have been said in about 100 times less words.

On May 21 2011 03:17 sylverfyre wrote:

But the problem with the pros is that they're inherently outliers. We don't exactly have a magic number attached to every pro showing their skill (or even their skill in each matchup) even when we attempt to model it through Elo ratings and such. Statistically the pros are going to always have very odd looking win ratios, and it's extremely hard to draw conclusions from them.

On May 21 2011 03:28 Jombozeus wrote:


Hence the conclusion drawn should be that statistics is not a good way to measure imbalance, NOT that pros are not a good way to draw conclusions FOR statistics.

Since we are discussing imbalance at the maximum potential, the statistical outlier is the prime consideration, not to be ignored. To assume that imbalance is equal at any level is absurd as previously stated, the skill:winrate ratio does not scale linearly.

On May 21 2011 04:11 Sleight wrote:



If we cannot use statistics, what can we use as a metric to examine data? There is ONLY statistics. Within the model presented, the OP does a great job of supporting and defining his argument. Everyone saying imbalances vary at skill levels have a VALID point, but that doesn't make it true.

If every Bronze Z loses to 3 Rax an imbalance metric of 2, and every Master Z loses to 2 Rax an imbalance metric of 2, then the imbalance value would be the same overall, assuming the MU was otherwise in harmony, for sake of an argument.

The methodology presented argues this: If a race is overpowered against another race, it should exist at a similar level regardless of direct causation or mechanism across all levels for purposes of general game balance. (ie different means at different levels but same net result of imba)

What it does NOT argue is this: Racial imbalance is uniform in mechanism across the spectrum (ie 2 rax is always the cause of OP).

This approach to balance allows for exactly one thing: Identification and stratification of the most gross (meaning large) imbalances in a game for presence alone. Why such an imbalance is present is up to debate. This means that he game CAN BE balanced as the author proposes at the largest scale and that tweaks in units and fine mechanics must be trade offs in overall power to solve issues at the highest level.

Well done, OP. Very neat read.

On May 21 2011 03:17 sylverfyre wrote:

But the problem with the pros is that they're inherently outliers. We don't exactly have a magic number attached to every pro showing their skill (or even their skill in each matchup) even when we attempt to model it through Elo ratings and such. Statistically the pros are going to always have very odd looking win ratios, and it's extremely hard to draw conclusions from them.

On May 20 2011 15:00 avilo wrote:
Just because someone made an incredibly long post does not make it mega awesome or even remotely accurate.

The most obvious thing completely wrong with the "post" is to not look at pros for balance. In any RTS game or game you always look at the top level for balance because these are the people playing the game at the highest level and are actively trying to "break the game."

Really all the OP is saying (but ironically not doing in many of his examples in the OP) is: "don't be biased with your balance judgements."

Nothing new...and there's no need to go into "intricate mathematics" or math at all for any of this...the OP is overcomplicating things, and likely has not enough experience to legitimately comment on balance or imbalance in the first place.

The most qualified people to talk about balance are the pro players and people high up on ladder that are playing the game everyday versus other good players.

But 99% of these players are trying to practice and improve themselves and not even worry about balance in the first place, though everyone QQ sometimes.

imo OP is just trying to re-invent the wheel on balance discussions aka having a discussion about how to discuss things lol...there's about one of these posts per month or so that pop up with some guy that thinks he's mega smart and mystical with "the maths" -_- there's just so many things wrong in the OP and ironically "biased."

Do we really need another thread discussing how we should be discussing things and hordes of low post count people going, "wow you're so smart and amazing."

Nice effort sure...but i think a bit misplaced. Also, the entire premise of the thread doesn't work because there is no definitive model for imbalance. The model everyone uses for imbalance is...guess what?

Their personal bias and opinion. Notice my use of italics for emphasis.

On May 20 2011 15:00 avilo wrote:
The model everyone uses for imbalance is...guess what?

Their personal bias and opinion. Notice my use of italics for emphasis.

On May 21 2011 04:54 Jombozeus wrote:


Contrary to popular belief, anecdotal evidence from pros usually do. Statistics is the only metric to measure data? Since when have we concluded that a metrics is necessary?

The assumption you make with the net result is absolutely preposterous. Its grossly abusing inductive reasoning. The stats themselves show that at different levels, the win% of different races is different in each matchup. I don't understand how you can convince yourself that is a valid argument.

As there are still those who have not realized, identification of short term "imbalance" is easy with statistics, we say "hey, we see 55% winrate over terran as zerg at X point master level, hence zerg is more imba than terran at X point master level." That does NOT mean:

1. Zerg is imbalanced compared to terran at all levels
2. Zerg will exhibit the same winrate vs. terran tomorrow, next week, or next month due to a new paradigm shift
3. Zerg players and terran players will exhibit the same level of increase in general skill at the same rate
4. We shouldn't listen to IdrA because of his cognitive bias towards the zerg race

1,2,3 are assumptions that lapses in logic, while 4 is a conclusion the OP made with the utmost lack of respect for pro gamers.

Would you go up to a scientist and tell him: "Hey, I know you're a scientist, but because you have cognitive bias I don't believe you should be able to make conclusions about science."

PS: Short term can be as short as an infinitely small amount of time