|
On September 23 2014 04:18 SirPinky wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 23 2014 03:03 Samx wrote:
Been reading this thread for the longest time and the problem is that most discussions are getting nowhere because the concept of balance differs for most players. All too often we have players relating their experience on the ladder only to get snide comments about their experience being irrelevant.
So let's get things straight about what is the balance that everyone seems to have an opinion on and more likely than not being influenced by the race they play. Now, let us imagine a hypothetical world where SC2 was only available to the American continents. No one else is able to play the game. Therefore we have Major, winning the past 6 iterations of the cola Americana. A bona fide bonjwa. In this world, we would be discussing now op terran was, because Major just rekt everyone on such a consistent basis.
Would anyone be wrong to say based on results, with terran winning the last 6 biggest tournaments and draw conclusions from tournament results? In the hypothetical world, the argument seems pretty sound doesn't it? But in our world, it isn't the case. Outside of the Americas, major despite being a great player hasn't won a major tournament. So in the hypothetical world, the zergs and Protoss in America is losing to major because of balance issue or is it because of skill level?
Now, back to our world. Are the marus and boguses losses to protosses due to balance or skill level?
That brings me to the first point. There is a theoretical balance of the game. Where the players have immaculate micro and macro where they are able to perform 2000 apm and have practiced on each map 2000 times and able to react perfectly to the information they gather. Is this the balance that we are discussing? Posts that seems to discuss this theoretical balance are for examples pointing out dps/supply/mineral or mules rate of mining or comparison of stats of units or game mechanics like force field.
If the theoretical balance is not the thing we want to argue about, then the other balance is the skill level balance. So the pertinent question would then be, at which skill level should the game be balanced? Bronze? Platinum? Gm NA? Gm Korea? Gsl? Proleague? Or zest vs soo vs flash level? Or TheDwf and Avillo level?
I find a bit of the animosity that develops over the course of the discourse between proponents of differing views of racial imbalance can easily be eradicated if they can come to an agreement first on which balance they are discussing, theoretical or for lack of better word, practical. If it's practical, then see if they both agree on the skill level that the game should be balanced on. I don't think anyone is talking about theoretical balance of the game or you would end up with something like this: Therefore, I think balance comes down to how easy races can execute builds and/or strategies with their race and its efficacy at a higher level: Meaning, the easier a build is to execute, then the less powerful it should be at a higher level (i.e. GM), since it is easily scouted and shut down. This is where I see a disparity in parts of SC2. Builds like proxy DT's, Oracles, Blink, 2-base roach all-ins, double factory helbat, for example can beat players WAY over their opponents skill level. The strength of such attacks any Gold or Platinum can learn, but can be executed with the same efficacy on a GM level. The same concept applies to APM (or EPM) where you have a player who might beat another race, but requires nearly twice the APM to do it. As i said earlier, balance, in my opinion, comes down to how much skill you need to play a race and where players with the same skill cap match up that play a different race.
I disagree, of course a build cannot be too strong if its too easy to execute, but its more important to make sure a variety of playstyles is viable. Its also important to make sure a necessary unit like the roach is strong enough, more important than making easy builds easy to hold.
Making easier builds less powerful would be a great thing, but i don't think balance is just that. But i do think that skill to reward should be taken into account.
Players with the same skill should match at the hightest levels in my opinion. Streching the sample when it can help, already explained why in previous post.
edit: as you can see, i mostly agree with you 
|
There are only 3 ways to discuss balance.
1.) overall winrates (includes "lowbies)
2.) tournament results (small sample size)
3.) perceived difficulty (relative scale)
All 3 have valid reasons for being wrong. Hence why no one can agree.
|
Just stop spitting out ridiculous assumptions when only one month has been played on the new patch. Terran was underperforming in Korea for 7 months and were finally set to have something else than soO vs Protoss in the GSL finals. Everyone should be happy that all the races are decently represented there now.
If history showed us something, its that at the beginning of both games (wol, hots) Terran was very strong after the release and then Blizzard continously nerfed them into oblivion, instead of giving more time to adapt for the other races. I honestly dont care who wins premier tournaments as long as all the races are consistently appearing in the finals or the final four (and i obviously prefer non-mirror finals). And im happy as long as GSL has an equal race distribution from Ro32 to Ro8.
Im just so tired of seeing only PvZs, PvPs and ZvZs without a chance to see a TvT (which is the most interesting mirror since ever, no doubt) in GSL, that id have to hurt someone at blizzard if they nerfed Terran to trash again.
Give it time and more maps before u assume that were going to see only two zergs in the next code S (which is never ever going to happen). We are at the best state of the game since November 2013....yay
|
On September 23 2014 02:12 bo1b wrote:
Aww shit, thedwf and naruto are gonna comb through all these posts, I can hardly wait :D
Nah I give up actually. Two months after a major patch some people have already decided Terran is OP. It's the eternal return. They just don't learn.
On September 23 2014 02:25 DinoMight wrote:
@TheDwf
Certainly that guy's example was a bit extreme (very small sample size and ridiculous claims).. but it does seem like Terran is getting the better end of the deal in TvZ right now.
Based on?
The maps are pretty tough
Yeah. I still have no idea how you're supposed to attack Zerg's fourth on Overgrowth since your army traps itself in a tight corridor with a natural flank for your opponent, the distance on cross Deadwing is so long and Catallena's fourth just seems to be out of reach when Zerg takes the furthest one.
… ah you meant for Zerg. I don't know. We're far from things like Bel'shir or Star Station. I'd take the map pool from the beginning of HotS over the current one any day. The map pool from this season is better for TvP than for TvZ. I don't know what Zerg pros think about it, maybe you can ask Snute or TLO their opinion on the Strategy forum.
and the mines are back to pre-patch AND the Hellbats haven't been reverted.
So surely, if the matchup was balanced pre wm nerf (which I think you've said) it's more favorable for Terran now, what with the Hellbat buff and better maps?
No, I don't make statements like that.
The syllogistic argument you mention goes like:
1. TvZ was balanced pre-Mine nerf;
2. Since then Terrans got merged upgrades, Tank buff, Hellbat transformation with Armory, Thor targetting air while Zerg got burrow buff for Roaches and increased dps for hydras;
3. So of course with all those buffs Terran is OP.
Except that:
1. The "initial balance" remains unknown since Blizzard patched the game before both sides found/refined the optimal way(s) to play the match-up…
2. Merged upgrades have no impact on 4M;
3. Increased attack speed for Tanks has no impact on 4M;
4. Hellbat timings would be a problem if they weighed Zerg standard builds down so much that they would lose to other stuff (straight 3OC, etc.) but that's not the case. Zerg isn't forced to open blind defensive Roaches every game, plus all Hellbat openings end up behind against correct Zerg defence or even have straight build order losses that adjust their risk/reward ratio (in short they're a "metagaming tool" and not a standard);
5. Thor splash is still negated by magic box, and the situation in which a pack of mutas tries to snipe a Mine under the surveillance of a Thor is unchanged pre- and post-patch (since there are only air targets anyway). Plus not all pro Terrans constantly build Thors. Some like Flash or Polt do, some like Bogus produce them episodically, some like Maru, Cure or Bomber don't get them at all in some games. Even for that aspect that may seem straightforward there's no consensus yet…
Last point, Zerg play is still evolving. Zerg isn't stuck in a bottomless pit like Terran was the past few months. There's still the potentially giant wave of Swarm host play after mutas waiting to crash on the TvZ shore. In Europe that's already the standard way to play for pros like Snute, TargA or Kane, and it's spreading. Who knows, in 2 months this thread may be full of rage towards Locusts being standard in TvZ…
|
On September 23 2014 06:39 TheDwf wrote:
Who knows, in 2 months this thread may be full of rage towards Locusts being standard in TvZ…
I hope this isn't the case :/
|
The Zerg rule of GSL was 2010-2011 where Zerg won the first two GSLs and even had a ZvZ finals between nestea and Losira.
People also say that that was when Terran was too strong and Zerg was UP but results can be skewed if you simply look at the GSL.
If you take the total population then we currently have one of the most stable matchups across the board with a 50% winrates in all matchups give or take 5% at any given week.
Here's the truth. The game is only as balanced as you perceive it to be. You can cherry pick the right stats and feel convinced race ____ is too weak/strong.
Someone made a comment earlier that if Soo had won all those GSL finals no one would be talking about Zerg being too weak vs Terran. So far, over time all three races represents top wins pretty evenly. All three races are very even in winrates as well. The game is very very balanced statistically. Even those Protoss dominations were all very close matches and not just 4-0 rotfl stomps like 2010-2012 GSLfinals were.
What this thread is really arguining about is not about balance but about philosophies of what counts as real balance or fake balance. It's the discussion about the abstract concept of fairness, of the qualitative value of labor vs reward. It leads to nowhere because people are so stuck on trying to prove race X is Y because Z and it isn't actually talking about what people actually want to discuss.
|
@TheDwf
Well, I think some of those buffs are more important than you make them seem.
For example, the Hellbat buff is huge because now there is a viable, potentially deadly way out of a 2 rax that requires a very different reaction from Z (2 base allin). Whereas before if a Zerg held ("survived") a 2 rax he could drone drone drone.. now he still has to worry about scouting a potential Hellbat allin, but with significantly less map presence (Marines deny early overlords). And the roaches/spines/whatever you need to stop it put you really far behind against standard play.
Mine buff is obvious.
I forget who did it but I saw a couple of recent games where the Terran followed up a 2 rax with a Hellbat timing and it looked completely unstoppable....
Regarding the maps, Catallena seems really good for Terran TvZ as the distance from the T's natural to the Zerg's 3rd is quite short. And Nimbus gives the Terran a very easy to secure natural but makes creep spread kind of a pain for the Zerg when he's trying to take his 3rd (unless he wants to take the outside one first, which is more exposed). Also, Foxtrot is extremely narrow and full of choke points (and in some spawns, Zerg needs to break rocks to get their 3rd... yes I know so does T but T typically takes it later than Z).
Whether or not it was balanced before the widow mine nerf is debatable, but surely Terrans are better off now than they were then vs. Z. So I wasn't really arguing that Terran OP, more that they're.... more favored than they have been.
|
This is the first month in over a year that Terran had the highest overall winrate.
Protoss still wins everything in Korea and I think TvP is OK, right around 50/50. TvZ may be a bit terran favored, but Bomber and Flash don't even use widow mines, so if fixing the Thor's AI made the matchup tilt then I think it would be better to give Zerg a small buff rather than nerfing T.
Why not just taking the hive requirement away for 3/3?
|
On September 23 2014 04:02 Superbanana wrote:
I usually discuss balance based on top pro play, the hightest out there, taking into account GM and maybe masters for the sake of a larger sample when numbers are involved. Thats where things are taken most seriously (including money involved), and its also reference for players on lower levels.
It should take into account the mistake to punishment and skill to reward equations, so its not assuming perfect play.
DPS/supply/etc are things we can use to understand the game and figure out where the imbalance is.
We are discussing the same thing right?
Edit: about the maps, the mapmakers did a great job making more balanced maps, then blizzard decided to change terran a second time in the new map pool...
For argument sake.
The highest level of pro play. This in itself can be broken down to several layers.
1. Top few players of each race. Zest Rain SoS herO (LOL, to me they are the today's equivalent of 4 dragons), Flash, Innovation, Taeja, Cure, Soo, Solar, Soukey, Effort(a pity he retired. He was looking so good in gameplay recently)
2. Koreans that have a decent chance of beating the above listed players, from stats/maru to the likes of byong/dear.
3. Koreans at the same level as the Scarlett, snute and bunny. Includes players like liquid hero, jaedong, polt.
4. Top foreigners like welmu, sen, vortix and weaker Koreans like balloon, oz, sniper.
5. Foreigners like Major, minigun, tlo, sjaak.
6. Other pros.
When MC is stomping on Europeans in WCS Europe, is it because MC is better or toss op? Or MMA beating slivko at DH:Moscow and winning. Or True 12-0 run at the same event. Signs of op? I'm not sure what numbers you look at though, wins percentages?
My point is to answer a question of practical balance, we need data of games played. However such data are often meaningless by digging out numbers of wins percentages. In fact, most numbers are practically useless. As many posts here are about numbers of various data. Numbers like number of players in the later stages of the GSL. Using an example, DRG beat flash to make RO8. Got destroyed by innovation. Is Innovation>DRG>Flash in skill? Is DRG beating flash an example of Zerg Op? Or innovation beating DRG terran OP? I think most will agree that this set of results mean nothing in terms of balance or indication of skill level. DRG beat flash strategically.
Nothing against you or your method of assessing balance. Just playing the devil's advocate to ask pertinent questions about discourse on balance.
|
On September 23 2014 06:46 Thieving Magpie wrote: What this thread is really arguining about is not about balance but about philosophies of what counts as real balance or fake balance. It's the discussion about the abstract concept of fairness, of the qualitative value of labor vs reward. It leads to nowhere because people are so stuck on trying to prove race X is Y because Z and it isn't actually talking about what people actually want to discuss.
Man, I hate this discussion. Protoss always loses this discussion. =(
|
On September 23 2014 07:19 TokO wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2014 06:46 Thieving Magpie wrote: What this thread is really arguining about is not about balance but about philosophies of what counts as real balance or fake balance. It's the discussion about the abstract concept of fairness, of the qualitative value of labor vs reward. It leads to nowhere because people are so stuck on trying to prove race X is Y because Z and it isn't actually talking about what people actually want to discuss. Man, I hate this discussion. Protoss always loses this discussion. =(
I've never understood the Protoss is ez mode argument, mostly because I suck with Protoss.
|
On September 23 2014 06:39 TheDwf wrote:
Except that:
1. The "initial balance" remains unknown since Blizzard patched the game before both sides found/refined the optimal way(s) to play the match-up…
2. Merged upgrades have no impact on 4M;
3. Increased attack speed for Tanks has no impact on 4M;
4. Hellbat timings would be a problem if they weighed Zerg standard builds down so much that they would lose to other stuff (straight 3OC, etc.) but that's not the case. Zerg isn't forced to open blind defensive Roaches every game, plus all Hellbat openings end up behind against correct Zerg defence or even have straight build order losses that adjust their risk/reward ratio (in short they're a "metagaming tool" and not a standard);
5. Thor splash is still negated by magic box, and the situation in which a pack of mutas tries to snipe a Mine under the surveillance of a Thor is unchanged pre- and post-patch (since there are only air targets anyway). Plus not all pro Terrans constantly build Thors. Some like Flash or Polt do, some like Bogus produce them episodically, some like Maru, Cure or Bomber don't get them at all in some games. Even for that aspect that may seem straightforward there's no consensus yet…
Last point, Zerg play is still evolving. Zerg isn't stuck in a bottomless pit like Terran was the past few months. There's still the potentially giant wave of Swarm host play after mutas waiting to crash on the TvZ shore. In Europe that's already the standard way to play for pros like Snute, TargA or Kane, and it's spreading. Who knows, in 2 months this thread may be full of rage towards Locusts being standard in TvZ…
Flash loses and will continue to do so if he continues to deny using mines. Basically every composition of terran gets way stronger vs ling/bane/muta with just 2-4 mines inside. The same goes for thors that other players seem not to use already.
I guess terrans have more room to evolve thans zergs these days (what your own examples obviously prove). This is also true for countering and preventing swarmhost play. Ravens are still one of the most overpowered units in the game when being massed. Terrans maybe coulda evolve into raven transitions if zergs do stuff like hosts, who knows.
Putting the chance to evolve only on the side of zerg, smells a bit like bias. As well as claiming that when Terran is behind in the current meta it is in the final state and nothing can evolve anymore but when zerg is behind they got alot of room to evolve always.
I also wonder that you speak like tank buff and hellbat buff had no effect on TvZ. You talk about 4M instead of TvZ, so you strictly speaking wanna say that these buffs have no effect on the whole matchup at all?
Just saying, this is no neutral view on things.
Additionally: constructing theoretical situations where mutas alone snipe mines in thor range so that you can claim the thor change had as well no impact (like the 4 other terran buffs, lol :D) at all on the matchup is just the very same again. You know yourself that the important thing are the big engagements where all units come together and the new thors have a huge impact on resetting muta counts. You as well wanna deny this? That would be kinda ridiculous mate.
|
On September 23 2014 07:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2014 07:19 TokO wrote:On September 23 2014 06:46 Thieving Magpie wrote: What this thread is really arguining about is not about balance but about philosophies of what counts as real balance or fake balance. It's the discussion about the abstract concept of fairness, of the qualitative value of labor vs reward. It leads to nowhere because people are so stuck on trying to prove race X is Y because Z and it isn't actually talking about what people actually want to discuss. Man, I hate this discussion. Protoss always loses this discussion. =( I've never understood the Protoss is ez mode argument, mostly because I suck with Protoss.
Protoss requires the least apm/epm by a considerable margin so I think that has a lot to do with it
|
Yes, the tournament repesentation is on a great state, and i do hope zerg manages to prove its not UP at all and things stays like this. But im not expecting that to happen, and i not saying its a fact, lets just keep an eye on it 
All im saying is that there was simply too many things going against zerg recently in TvZ, one thing after another, and i think it was an overreaction to a TvZ imbalance that i do agree that existed (i was discussing terrans buffs some time ago on this thread). It shifted results and the meta game in a rough way and that is bad for the game and quite frustrating for zerg (im not particulary frustrated, but im guessing many players are). Im against another patch soon, but there are some signs that all thing together turned the balance upside down.
About zerg adapting, there is a possibility that terrans will adapt too and start crushing zerg with some thor mine heavy play o_O
Yes, we should wait more before any conclusion.
|
zerg and protoss are waay to weak, zerg is designed to only win if they have insane macro, or life's balls, hence why only one or 2 zergs can really compete at the highest level, toss is a terribly weak race: mass marine only minz killz mass toss deathball mass gas
|
On September 23 2014 07:36 LSN wrote:
Putting the chance to evolve only on the side of zerg, smells a bit like bias. As well as claiming that when Terran is behind in the current meta it is in the final state and nothing can evolve anymore but when zerg is behind they got alot of room to evolve always.
...
Just saying, this is no neutral view on things.
I also agree that that statement is a bit biased. If zerg play hasn't "evolved" yet then saying that T has fully explored all options is... not reasonable.
EDIT - woah I'm a Reaver now. Neat.
|
On September 23 2014 06:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:
What this thread is really arguining about is not about balance but about philosophies of what counts as real balance or fake balance. It's the discussion about the abstract concept of fairness, of the qualitative value of labor vs reward. It leads to nowhere because people are so stuck on trying to prove race X is Y because Z and it isn't actually talking about what people actually want to discuss.
Precisely. Well said.
Felt the need to highlight once again the wisdom in your words.
|
Northern Ireland25090 Posts
On September 23 2014 07:42 Cricketer12 wrote:
zerg and protoss are waay to weak, zerg is designed to only win if they have insane macro, or life's balls, hence why only one or 2 zergs can really compete at the highest level, toss is a terribly weak race: mass marine only minz killz mass toss deathball mass gas
Hyperbole much?
|
On September 23 2014 07:12 Samx wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2014 04:02 Superbanana wrote:
I usually discuss balance based on top pro play, the hightest out there, taking into account GM and maybe masters for the sake of a larger sample when numbers are involved. Thats where things are taken most seriously (including money involved), and its also reference for players on lower levels.
It should take into account the mistake to punishment and skill to reward equations, so its not assuming perfect play.
DPS/supply/etc are things we can use to understand the game and figure out where the imbalance is.
We are discussing the same thing right?
Edit: about the maps, the mapmakers did a great job making more balanced maps, then blizzard decided to change terran a second time in the new map pool... For argument sake. The highest level of pro play. This in itself can be broken down to several layers. 1. Top few players of each race. Zest Rain SoS herO (LOL, to me they are the today's equivalent of 4 dragons), Flash, Innovation, Taeja, Cure, Soo, Solar, Soukey, Effort(a pity he retired. He was looking so good in gameplay recently) 2. Koreans that have a decent chance of beating the above listed players, from stats/maru to the likes of byong/dear. 3. Koreans at the same level as the Scarlett, snute and bunny. Includes players like liquid hero, jaedong, polt. 4. Top foreigners like welmu, sen, vortix and weaker Koreans like balloon, oz, sniper. 5. Foreigners like Major, minigun, tlo, sjaak. 6. Other pros. When MC is stomping on Europeans in WCS Europe, is it because MC is better or toss op? Or MMA beating slivko at DH:Moscow and winning. Or True 12-0 run at the same event. Signs of op? I'm not sure what numbers you look at though, wins percentages? My point is to answer a question of practical balance, we need data of games played. However such data are often meaningless by digging out numbers of wins percentages. In fact, most numbers are practically useless. As many posts here are about numbers of various data. Numbers like number of players in the later stages of the GSL. Using an example, DRG beat flash to make RO8. Got destroyed by innovation. Is Innovation>DRG>Flash in skill? Is DRG beating flash an example of Zerg Op? Or innovation beating DRG terran OP? I think most will agree that this set of results mean nothing in terms of balance or indication of skill level. DRG beat flash strategically. Nothing against you or your method of assessing balance. Just playing the devil's advocate to ask pertinent questions about discourse on balance.
Individual game results should be analysed as... individual games. They can be used as an example to ilustrate the imbalance, but single games are no evidence.
Some things that can indicate imbalance:
1 - A race is underperforming or overperforming in top tournaments (BL infestor era/2 Terrans in GSL)
2 - An specific build or composition is used repeatedly with overwhelming sucess, without any clear way to hold/secure an advantage (BL infestor/blink)
Numbers are important but not enough, imbalance must be identified, and adressed properly. Before any conclusion it must be clear that the supposed to be UP race attempted multiple changes with no sucess, and it must be enough to conclude there is no reliable way to play the game.
Small imbalaces might remain unchanged with this but idk.
About the layers, the highter the better, since highter level is highter relevance from my perspective. But using only the top 4 of each race is an evaluation of individual struggle in playstyles. Players dislike units, have difficulty with specific all-ins, etc
To answer the question "Are carrier all ins too strong?" if the answer is "not in code S" its not as important if foreigners are dying to it since there is clearly a way to hold and they are just not good enough. (invented something ridiculous to make clear its just an example).
But in some circunstances it might be necessary to look at other layers, for example, if there is only 1 player in Code S that had to hold the carrier al in, the sample is simply too small and could be related only with individual weaknesses.
|
On September 23 2014 07:42 Cricketer12 wrote:
zerg and protoss are waay to weak, zerg is designed to only win if they have insane macro, or life's balls, hence why only one or 2 zergs can really compete at the highest level, toss is a terribly weak race: mass marine only minz killz mass toss deathball mass gas
Thank you for your wonderful contribution to this discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
