|
On August 13 2011 12:56 NoobSkills wrote:
Won't read the whole thing.
Biggest issue is that there are too many builds, match ups, strategies, timings, skill levels to just balance the game at a the though of imbalance. That was this mistake when blizzard started listening to bronze players and kept changing the game to fit their needs. The game needs to be balanced at the VERY top, because if you're not playing your A game then it really isn't about balance, you could have macro'd better, micro'd better, used different units, hit a better timing. All sorts of things are to be contributed and comparing this game to a fighting game where most of the time similar moves to used regularly which leads to imbalance being easily noticed in one character isn't the easiest way to make an argument.
Also on a side note there are two more games coming out if you couldn't figure out how you were supposed to win in SC2 then HoTS might be where you shine. When the last game comes through then you can worry about imbalance and hopefully make a more even maps and matchups.
I think you should read the whole thing. Are there really more builds/matchups/strategies/timings and skill levels at SC2 than SF4?
I agree on that the game should be balanced at the very top rather than around anything else, but I also think that it's important to think about mistakes when balancing as well. If one race lost if they made a mistake while another race one could still win even if they made a mistake, then that is something to balance around as well, right? Nobody is playing perfectly or will ever do. But I think you agree with me here, just wanted to add this 
Your other point is good. You shouldn't worry that much about imbalances until the game have been figured out a bit and the dust is gone. But it's still important to have balance in mind, right? Otherwise we will have WC3 all over again where the game never got balanced, and since developers can't patch a game forever we should take care of the time we have? But yes, I see your point.
|
On August 13 2011 12:34 Koillette wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2011 12:30 lizzard_warish wrote:
@Koillete: It's because the posts are 99% of the time vitriolic and uneducated, it does nothing but damages the community [and our collective IQ]. Balance should be left to be people who genuinely understand the game. I don't see how it damages the community and our collective IQ. Balance affect alot more NON-pros then pro. More non-pros. I hate these, Only pro's can talk about balance?
This statement is wrong. Can you show me any examples of where a non-pro or even pro genuinely loses a game because of imbalance and not because of their bad decision making or mechanics?
Its a bait but ideally . .. yes, balance should be focused at the top. In lower levels players might not have the mechanics or multitasking to play a race to its potential so balance shouldnt be based around them.
For example if a player has poor larva injects then it will affect his economy and unit production so they cant stop a seemingly unstoppable push from P or T and they cry imba!. When in reality it might be because their queen has 50 energy and another 4 roaches or lings would of wont that battle. You could argue that its easier to queue units to create that push than it is to defend it but then thats player error and not really the games fault.
Its not like this is a radically new idea that races have a different requirement of skill to be able to play well. Look at BW and the ridiculous number of foreigner protoss pros compared to Z or T. Then look at korea.
|
I know that I'm simplifying here, and I may sound ignorant, but it takes thousands of matches to even kind of determine if something is imba, or underpowered in SC2. It doesn't take that many matches to determine that Hakan is a terrible character who will never be able to compete with a competent Yun. Or that Q is terrible, and can't beat a good Chun or Urien without having a massive amount of skill on the other guy. There's a slight difference between the two games, in that respect. Alot of the top-tier characters in SF are found rather quickly. Not so much with SC2, since there's a lot more variables than SF has. Builds are found over thousands of hours of play, and their counters are found with that same effort.
|
On August 13 2011 12:30 Steel wrote:
Starcraft 2 has THREE races races where as SF4 and other competitive fighting games like SSBB have a ton of characters. When people buy fighter games they don't expect the game to be perfectly balanced and they don't expect updates. They are still angry that the game isn't balanced (trust me, the SSBB scene is so dominated by Meta Knight with only a few that can hope to compete and people are angry that some characters are so imbalanced) but they know nothing will ever be done on the matter and so it is pointless to prove something. Making a thread about MK being imbalanced do nothing even if people agree with him or not, so people don't do them. On the other hand, in SC2 if a lot of people complain about a particular issue Blizzard WILL work hard at examining the issue and when they have deemed something to be imbalanced they fix it. It takes time but surely in a few years we will have a game that's perfectly balanced.
This time though the SF4-creator reacted to the issue about imbalance and are going to patch the game once again (this time for free) because of the reactions from the community. The SSBB creator on the other hand doesn't care, but as for SF4 there are people caring and doing something about the imbalances.
On August 13 2011 12:30 Steel wrote:Finally, imagine if one of the 3 races ended up to be imbalanced, one was balanced, and one was overpower. Would you really want to see tournaments like the GSL or seasons like NASL with 80% Terran, 15% Protoss and 5% Zerg? Of course not TvT can be fun but seeing ONLY that would be sooo boring. In fighters theres always a High Tier that can all somewhat compete with each other so they'll be variety still, at least a lot more that in above example.
Was this a reaction to my post? I haven't said the countrary. And if you put it that way (that there are high tiers with SEVERAL characters in fighting games but the high tier of SC2 only is one race) then it sounds even more important to balance SC2 than SF4, and therefore the SC2-community should comment on balance even more than the SF4-community (rather than how it is right now)
|
On August 13 2011 13:03 T0fuuu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2011 12:34 Koillette wrote:On August 13 2011 12:30 lizzard_warish wrote:
@Koillete: It's because the posts are 99% of the time vitriolic and uneducated, it does nothing but damages the community [and our collective IQ]. Balance should be left to be people who genuinely understand the game. I don't see how it damages the community and our collective IQ. Balance affect alot more NON-pros then pro. More non-pros. I hate these, Only pro's can talk about balance? This statement is wrong. Can you show me any examples of where a non-pro or even pro genuinely loses a game because of imbalance and not because of their bad decision making or mechanics? Its a bait but ideally . .. yes, balance should be focused at the top. In lower levels players might not have the mechanics or multitasking to play a race to its potential so balance shouldnt be based around them. For example if a player has poor larva injects then it will affect his economy and unit production so they cant stop a seemingly unstoppable push from P or T and they cry imba!. When in reality it might be because their queen has 50 energy and another 4 roaches or lings would of wont that battle. You could argue that its easier to queue units to create that push than it is to defend it but then thats player error and not really the games fault. Its not like this is a radically new idea that races have a different requirement of skill to be able to play well. Look at BW and the ridiculous number of foreigner protoss pros compared to Z or T. Then look at korea.
Yes, It's important to not see every loss/win as imbalance. But if it's easier to win with race X than Y, doesn't that mean that the game is imbalanced? If zerg misses 2 larva injects and faces a protoss who misses only one chronoboost/whatever, and the protoss wins, doesn't that mean that the game is imbalanced EVEN if zerg made a mistake which solely lost him the game? I don't agree with people saying "If it's not 100% impossible to win a matchup then the game is balanced", because it's about balancing the game so that the skill levels always (or as often as possible) determine who wins, not which race you play.
I agree with your response though, I don't see why silver players should argue balance (unless the game is being balanced at low level, but that would KILL ESPORTS), because they will say "Hydras OP" just because they got outmacroed one game, which only shows that they don't know very much about the game.
Oh god I sound like an elitist sorry
|
On August 13 2011 13:02 skirmisheR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2011 12:56 NoobSkills wrote:
Won't read the whole thing.
Biggest issue is that there are too many builds, match ups, strategies, timings, skill levels to just balance the game at a the though of imbalance. That was this mistake when blizzard started listening to bronze players and kept changing the game to fit their needs. The game needs to be balanced at the VERY top, because if you're not playing your A game then it really isn't about balance, you could have macro'd better, micro'd better, used different units, hit a better timing. All sorts of things are to be contributed and comparing this game to a fighting game where most of the time similar moves to used regularly which leads to imbalance being easily noticed in one character isn't the easiest way to make an argument.
Also on a side note there are two more games coming out if you couldn't figure out how you were supposed to win in SC2 then HoTS might be where you shine. When the last game comes through then you can worry about imbalance and hopefully make a more even maps and matchups. I think you should read the whole thing. Are there really more builds/matchups/strategies/timings and skill levels at SC2 than SF4? I agree on that the game should be balanced at the very top rather than around anything else, but I also think that it's important to think about mistakes when balancing as well. If one race lost if they made a mistake while another race one could still win even if they made a mistake, then that is something to balance around as well, right? Nobody is playing perfectly or will ever do. But I think you agree with me here, just wanted to add this Your other point is good. You shouldn't worry that much about imbalances until the game have been figured out a bit and the dust is gone. But it's still important to have balance in mind, right? Otherwise we will have WC3 all over again where the game never got balanced, and since developers can't patch a game forever we should take care of the time we have? But yes, I see your point.
If you care about it now a game that will soon be obsolete will be balanced and not the next game. I'd rather have the players hash it out and then we could determine what is up, but then again didn't Bisu invent the DT corsair gameplay late in BW which means there is always an opening for change anyways.
Now, we can take a simple nonfactual example Terran can turtle with 1 rax and make 3 command centers and bunkers and be safe. Zerg can choose to Nydus, 4 Hatch, Muta, bust, but until every response is tested on every map by the best players (which there are few of) 100's of times we won't know what actually needs to be changed. There are certain things that were obvious as far as early game timings where your opponent really wouldn't be given a chance to succeed such as the reaper build.
SF4 fighters have a limited set of moves, but the fighter can do whatever they please at any time while starcraft has not only an unlimited amount of moves, but no moves that are dictated either all are chosen and then with those moves the player can do whatever they please. That is why balance is a bit hard to come by.
Do you by chance happen to have a list of patch notes from BW? Because I already thing 1 patch for SC2 > every change from BW
|
TL; DR
User was temp banned for this post.
|
What do we gain by claiming there -is- an imbalance? Does that mean that Protoss are now "forgiven" of 14% of their overall losses versus terran because of a "matchup imbalance"? Do Zerg now get more money for winning tournaments, because they're statistically not favoured to do so? Do Terran now get to play best-of-fours versus Zerg where tie goes to the Terran?
I don't think it's a question of why the SC community can't accept imbalance, its a question of how you'd determine an imbalance in the first place, and what you'd do with that information when you got it. I'd think a vast, vast majority of the SC community would struggle to even come up with a solid definition for the concept of balance. To think that most of us have any deep insight or clear vision of what the imbalances of SC2 are is a little nuts.
I guess the final answer I'm willing to give is that the SC community is unwilling to accept imbalance because the SC community realizes there's no hard metric from which to gauge imbalance. Basically, it's got sweet parallels to arguing the existence/absence of god.
|
In fighting games, it's universal to have Tiers. Especially in the Street Fighter and SSB community. Everyone knows Metaknight is imba, and when over half the people who sign up for major tournaments are playing him there isn't much anyone can do about it except ban him in tournaments.
The nice thing, is that in SC2 Blizzard is actively working on balance issues around the clock. Most of us know that Protoss has been much MUCH against Zerg since the Roach and Infestor buff, and Blizzard will see this and make fixes.
What I do disagree with, and what should really stay out of the forums, is the high ammount of 'Idra balance QQ'. Dispite being a high level player, he doesn't complain about balance in a reasonable way. All he simply says is that "I lose, therefor any race I'm not playing is unbalanced", which is not acceptable at all and does not help the game progress.
|
I think that the culture of crying imba is very different in fighter vs. RTS games. RTS games are only for the computer. They all require internet connection to play. Therefore, balance patches are always possible, and there complaining about imbalance might lead to a change in the game. Until very recently however, it was impossible to patch most fighting games. It is impossible to update arcade games, N64 games, etc. by releasing a patch. Until the newest generation of consoles, fighting games did not recieve balance tweaks. So there was literally no point in complaining about imbalance. Perhaps this has lead to a general acceptance of imbalance in fighting games, but not in RTS games.
|
Part of the difference in attitude towards balance between the two communities is also where they come from. The RTS community has developed in an environment where games were patched to fix balance issues so there was always a lot of discussion and argument over it. The fighting game community developed primarily around arcade cabinets and old school consoles, which weren't patched for balance. The balance at release was pretty much what you were stuck with and you had to just suck it up and deal with it. While the situation has changed with fighting games now being patched for balance regularly, the general attitude of sucking it up and just playing the game has largely remained for those who came up in that environment. That might be some of the attitude you're seeing.
|
But if it's easier to win with race X than Y, doesn't that mean that the game is imbalanced? If zerg misses 2 larva injects and faces a protoss who misses only one chronoboost/whatever, and the protoss wins, doesn't that mean that the game is imbalanced EVEN if zerg made a mistake which solely lost him the game? I don't agree with people saying "If it's not 100% impossible to win a matchup then the game is balanced", because it's about balancing the game so that the skill levels always (or as often as possible) determine who wins, not which race you play.
Skill levels are irrelevant when both are at the ceiling. Top level players won't miss injects or chronoboosts either, so that's not actually imbalance, just a difference of difficulty. Also, chronoboosts aren't nearly as important to protoss as injects are to zerg, and protoss have other mechanics that zerg don't have to deal with; Not the greatest comparison in the world.
|
The fact that you compared a game that has 3 "characters" vs. a game that has 39(?) characters is not fair. It's obvious that a game that has 6 potential non-mirror matchups is obviously much closer to balanced than a game that has 39! amount of matchups. When I played Melee, there were only about 6-7 characters that were tournament viable. You'd rarely see any characters winning outside of those. Now if you made a game with only those characters, then the game would technically be a closer to balanced. Hell, take the best 3 characters in a fighting game and only have those characters. Probably be pretty damn balanced.
|
SC2 is so complex that the chance of something overpowering the game is lessened. In a fighting game, if 1 move is too fast it can bring all competition to a crashing halt.
|
We want every race to have players, and we want every matchup to be based on one players skill vs anothers, with no player given a free advantage.
Street Fighter has so many characters of course they cant expect each matchup to be balanced. Their tier system cannot apply to our system. If terran is better than zerg but equal to protoss, we have no zerg.
We cannot accept imbalance because we want every matchup between every race to be a dynamic test of skill.
|
I'm not sure if I really like this direct correlation you're presenting about a Fighting game and an RTS.
The reason why fighting tiers exist, in practically (if not every) fighting game, is because some characters have a wider variety of usable moves (usable as in you can enact them quickly or powerfully at the cost of a slower speed, or being unblock-able.) Most characters have similar moves, but some characters have more, and some of their moves are more potent for the cost of mobility, or strength.
Since there are three races, and three entirely different tiers that benefit each individual race differently, it's not quite so easy to make hard-line decisions about balance.
I'm not all too familiar with the fighter scene, but this is what I've taken away from it after playing SSBB for a while.
Overall, I think that balance discussion at this point in SC2 is rather irrelevant. Take the latest shift from "Protoss, op," to "why does Protoss have the lowest success rate in tournaments?"
|
Sweden1022 Posts
? I don't hang out in the strategy forum all that much, but I thought it was pretty much generally accepted that sc2 ISN'T balanced. There is a difference between saying "X unit is imbalanced" and "The game is imbalanced". The first implies that you have tried all counters to it, which people obviously hasn't. The second one is just a statistically sound belief, not to mention something which experience (results) have pointed towards, not to mention something that most, if not all, pros agree with.
|
RTS games are just so complex that it really needs to be balanced at high levels. Justin Wong can move to whoever is overpowered and crush with them. However a player chooses a race in SC and puts in a lot of time as the race, expecting it to be balanced becuase blizzard is still putting out patches and it turns out to not be, they are at an automatic disadvantage because they chose the wrong race at the beginning by chance.
This with consideration as to how much time it takes to master a race, you just have to expect nothing less than balance (even if through maps or an indirect way), or the game cannot be successful.
|
On August 13 2011 11:32 LegendaryZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2011 11:21 HyperLimen wrote:On August 13 2011 11:17 AlBundy wrote:
Because this is a STRATEGY game. You're pretty ignorant if you think there isn't some serious strategy and mind gaming going on in SF4. With meter management, its essentially a RTS with perfect information as opposed to having a fog of war. No it's not. It's a fighting game. Just because strategy becomes a factor to play on a competent level doesn't throw a game into the strategy genre. I hate it when people make these weak links between vastly different games because you could theoretically make that connection between any two games, which makes the connection a pointless one to make in the first place.
I agree. Its almost as bad as comparing starcraft and chess. Though in all fairness the argument that the way we approach balance should be different just because sc2 is a strategy game is pretty shitty. The argument needs to be elaborated, to say the least.
|
I'm sure that this has been pointed out but these two types of games are not comparable, no one has ever expected a fighting game to be perfectly balanced because it would be impossible to balance 20+ characters and keep it interesting but as you pointed out tier lists are made and people can know who the best competitive fighters are. In addition it's much easier to switch characters in fighting games than races in SC2 especially because in fighting games you can clearly trade up as diego did while SC2 is close enough to balanced that the loss in experience with your race will be a bigger problem than the slight advantage you might gain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
