EPTLots of data modelings and complicated algorithms. Leave it to computer scientists, engineers, and mathematicians.
Blizzard HotS Dustin vs Sen interview - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
twndomn
401 Posts
Lots of data modelings and complicated algorithms. Leave it to computer scientists, engineers, and mathematicians. | ||
|
windsupernova
Mexico5280 Posts
On June 09 2011 07:34 Motat wrote: I don't understand how they base some of there balance on win loss of races. The way battle.net matchmaking is setup, everyone will always have around a 50% win loss. Am I interpreting it wrong, or what? Battlenet wants you around 50% winrate overall not against each race. IE: lets suppose you play 10 games: 1.TvP-Win 2.TvZ-Loss 3.TvT-Loss 4.TvT-win 5.TvP-Loss 6.TvP-Loss 7.TvZ-Win 8.TvP-Loss 9.TvT-Win 10.TvZ-win In this (made up)example you are at a 50% winrate but in each matchup you are: TvZ:66% TvT:66% TvP:25% Well, just a way to say that overall winrate !=matchup winrate | ||
|
RmoteCntrld
United States596 Posts
On June 09 2011 07:29 PR4Y wrote: where did you get this interview? o.O edit: not that it matters anyway, we have it now... but after watching the first part it just seems totally counter-productive for Blizzard to invite Sen, out of ALL the talented zergs in the world, to voice their opinion on behalf of the zerg race. There are very apparent language barriers throughout the entire interview. He was most likely invited to represent Taiwan. | ||
|
windsupernova
Mexico5280 Posts
On June 09 2011 07:49 NB wrote: sum up for people lazy of loading the video: edit: im on part 3/4 right now.... gona watch live on three and comeback Thanks I happen to be one of those lazy people  I like how they answered the questions, especially the part about Zergs being or not passive as design. I mean anyone who has designed anything knows that people will always use it in some unintended way you can't predict, especially something like this game where there are a lot of variables | ||
|
randplaty
205 Posts
Browder said he was not aware of that and he thought in his own experiences that rushes are very risky but that he would bring that feedback to the balance team. He also said that BW was a different game with different mechanics when they decided to move to this new game engine and that there would be no way to imitate BW and that rushes are more common in SC2 due to the fact that the mechanics are easier. It seemed to me that Browder was content with rushes being easier in SC2 than BW and that that part was not going to change. I think that's HUGE that Browder confirmed that rushes (and all-ins) are easier and more common in SC2. This has huge implications on the pro scene and the metagame. Up until now a lot of pros have been advocating for a macro style play as just being better than timing rush or all-in style of play. If the game engine is dictating that all-in styles will be better in SC2, that could and should change a lot of progaming philosophy. | ||
|
Frugalicious
United States121 Posts
On June 09 2011 08:09 windsupernova wrote: Battlenet wants you around 50% winrate overall not against each race. IE: lets suppose you play 10 games: 1.TvP-Win 2.TvZ-Loss 3.TvT-Loss 4.TvT-win 5.TvP-Loss 6.TvP-Loss 7.TvZ-Win 8.TvP-Loss 9.TvT-Win 10.TvZ-win In this (made up)example you are at a 50% winrate but in each matchup you are: TvZ:66% TvT:66% TvP:25% Well, just a way to say that overall winrate !=matchup winrate In the past I do recall Blizzard stating that its based on individual matchup stats such as TvZ: 50% TvP: 50% ZvP: 50% The ladder is geared towards everyone having approximately 50% winrate, but their (older) statistics reflected something similar for each individual matchup. I have not seen any recent releases on their stats, but they have mentioned in several interviews its close enough to 50% per each MU. | ||
|
zobz
Canada2175 Posts
In fact, why don't they just let players choose what league to play in? This would really minimize the whole smurfing thing without having to run the ladder like a communist regime. Of course there would still be some fools who purposely play at lower leagues for the sake of noob bashing, but isn't that sort of expected anyway? It would just be so much nicer if there was more choice involved in the ladder, especially in name choosing. (This coming from someone who has only played some SC2 long ago at a friend's house.) Perhaps you could even be given the choice between a strictly managed ladder and an alternative free ladder. Surely some would choose the latter. Choice just seems to be very low on Blizzard's priority list in general for some reason. | ||
|
Ragoo
Germany2773 Posts
Even tho mapmakers could introduce all kinds of Terrain mechanics on their own - which btw they did with disappearing or destructible watchtowers - if new mechanics are introduced by Blizzard it'll be way more official and accepted. | ||
|
Hikari
1914 Posts
maybe obstacles for air units? Xelnaga warpgates (teleportation gateway) Moving map parts? (imagine two orbiting gold expos!) Areas of the map where you are more vulnerable (ie: if you choose to take the shortcut to atk you place yourself at a disadvantages position that is easy to defend and take extra dmg)? | ||
|
RaLakedaimon
United States1564 Posts
| ||
|
love.less
United Kingdom293 Posts
| ||
|
SilverJohnny
United States885 Posts
Browder looked so shocked when he was informed that there was like 50% rushes lol. | ||
|
RuneZerg
Denmark90 Posts
| ||
|
Wrongspeedy
United States1655 Posts
On June 09 2011 07:34 Motat wrote: I don't understand how they base some of there balance on win loss of races. The way battle.net matchmaking is setup, everyone will always have around a 50% win loss. Am I interpreting it wrong, or what? Because different people play different races and are randomly selected to play each other. So if your a zerg player, and your stomping people, you will be promoted. If they notice that 50% of all players play one race, and they win more than 50% of their games that might show imbalance. He even said thats just part of the equation as well, they just look at the numbers, and compare them to how they feel about their own play experience, and the experience of the pro's. So yes, your win rate should be 50% because of matchmaking, but because not everyone is playing the same race, and matchmaking tries to put you against even opponents, you can still look at balance by seeings the number of players playing each race at every level of play, think about why that is, and determine some kind of balance from that. I hope I explained that okay. + Show Spoiler + [QUOTE]On June 09 2011 08:15 zobz wrote: If the Blizzard team are so concerned about making maps that are balanced for each seperate skill level, why don't they just have a different map pool for each ladder league? This would even give the opportunity for master/grandmaster players to practice and get ranked for their play on real tournament maps, as well as have lots of fun maps and extra simplified maps for newbie players. In fact, why don't they just let players choose what league to play in? This would really minimize the whole smurfing thing without having to run the ladder like a communist regime. Of course there would still be some fools who purposely play at lower leagues for the sake of noob bashing, but isn't that sort of expected anyway? It would just be so much nicer if there was more choice involved in the ladder, especially in name choosing. (This coming from someone who has only played some SC2 long ago at a friend's house.) Perhaps you could even be given the choice between a strictly managed ladder and an alternative free ladder. Surely some would choose the latter. Choise just seems to be very low on Blizzard's priority list in general for some reason.[/QUOTE You can still pick maps at tournaments. If you don't know how to play on a small map, and your opponent does, you still lose the tournament because of it. The ladder should not be your only tool to improve. | ||
|
randplaty
205 Posts
On June 09 2011 08:24 RuneZerg wrote: "thats the first time ive heard that rushes are easy and safe" - Dustin Browder, never been 2 raxed :D My Chinese is not good... but maybe Sen was referring to all-ins and it was translated as "rushes?" I'm not sure if that would have made a difference in Browder's mind. | ||
|
RuneZerg
Denmark90 Posts
 | ||
|
randplaty
205 Posts
| ||
|
windsupernova
Mexico5280 Posts
On June 09 2011 08:24 RuneZerg wrote: "thats the first time ive heard that rushes are easy and safe" - Dustin Browder, never been 2 raxed :D Didn't he call 2 Rax a trash strategy? | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
| ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
| ||
| ||
