Designated Balance Discussion Thread - Page 1143

On October 14 2014 13:24 ZombieFrog wrote:


Because making broad generalized statements about races is clearly better. For example, what does "better economy" mean? Terran can mine minerals faster than zerg on less bases with far less supply dedicated to worker count leaving extra supply for army compared to zerg. In addition, the longer the game goes the less they even need workers. In super late game scenarios terran players have sacrificed most of their scvs for supply, had only one mining base, and muled it so much that they mined at a rate that would take the other races 3 mining bases to equal. On the other hand zerg can expand easier and mine more gas, but that also means they must defend more bases and dedicate more supply to workers. Which is better? Well they're different. They're better at different things. One is not objectively a "better economy" in every situation. Same with mobility. Lings and mutas are fast, but there's no good way for zerg to drop or elevator units up and down ledges or pick up in the middle of a fight. Again, they are different, one is not "superior mobility"

Your broad generalized and wrong statements are just as snarky and condescending as the ones you supposedly don't like.

On October 14 2014 11:50 plogamer wrote:

... and there it is. Stubbornness.

It is a shame when players from the race with better economy and mobility feel that they have the privilege of taking simple, head-on engagements and still trade cost-efficiently.

I, for one, am glad Scarlett can no longer use mass banes without flanks and take out Bomber.

ps. Big J , there's no need to be condescending when you don't have a straight answer to a straight question.

On October 14 2014 15:07 Big J wrote:


soO sets up the hugest concave possible vs Innovation game 6. Innovation drops all his mines. He only has like 2 that are rallied. Goes on creep, against this huuuuuge concave. soO wins the combat and gets out with a 30supply lead.
Then you come in and take that game as proof that Zergs don't flank. And then you are wondering why I'm being condescending?

Nearly all of the time we see Zergs barely finishing their banelings, half of the time not even. Half of the time some part of the banelings (that get insta started after the zerglings have rallied forward) get canceled by the perma-attacking 4M force before finishing. And then you tell me those units should actually be on a 20second trip somewhere else? You gotta forgive me when I'm condescending here reading useless advice how zergs should play.

Edit:
At this point I could go into a discussion about "better economy and mobility"...

On October 14 2014 16:12 plogamer wrote:


Hope you remembered to breathe this time.

I wasn't giving advice, afaik soO isn't reading this thread. You assume I was giving advice, take offense, and then go on and act on that assumption like a pompous ass. It's a simple critique. In WoL, I have seen Polt with virtually surrounds on Zerg lategame army and that sometimes still wasn't enough. Speedling flanks would have the added advantage of splashing mine damage all over the Terran army.

You point out yourself that Zergs can win combat with good engagements. Can you say that soO played with good engagements consistently? Imagine if he had a flank on top of a concave, that 30 supply lead would be even bigger. Zergs that you see barely finishing their banelings are in that position due to their poor engagements. DRG already showed how to deal with 4M long ago, I don't see why you're still complaining about a 'perma-attacking 4M force'.

On October 14 2014 13:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:


It adds a whole lot. Your metric is only relevant to the subset you demarcated. When discussing the totality of TvZ the whole of Aligulac is necessary. The arbitrary demarcation you placed simply allows us to compare a certain subset of players to each other, with the assumption that those subset of players are representative of the greater whole (or, more accurately, representative of the potential limits of the races as a whole)

However, when discussing the balance of the matchup in a totality as opposed to a representative minority, Aligulac is definitely more accurate than your system. But your system is more relevant when asking how well player X does in metagame Y.

On October 14 2014 18:20 Swisslink wrote:

Even during the BL/Infestor era, the ladder winrate was about even. Game was balanced all along?

... And yes, I know that's a bad example for balance. But so is your example. If you count in the entire Aligulac, games between full time Korean pros against some Europeans is countsd the same way, Innovation vs soO is. This leads to a HUGE amount of games which were decided, before the game even started, because one player is just superior in every way.
This again leads to an even win%, even if the top 100 Zerg lose to the top 100 Terran 100% of the time. And that would definitely mean that the game is imbalanced, even if Aligulac says something else.

On October 14 2014 20:35 Tsubbi wrote:
terran has just won every wcs region in dominating fashion and took most tournaments since the latest patch was released

be honest now, something is a bit off atm, its quite similiar to the protoss domination before and during wcs season 2

On October 14 2014 21:03 Tuczniak wrote:
Swisslink is right. AntiRW's Top50 is the set of players that the game should be primarily balanced around. Unless one complains that diamond X loses to platinum Y. (and some race distributions are still good I guess)

Anyway considering changes. If there were some interesting changes like buffing Z - making game more diverse or letting units to be controlled better. I would go with it soon in off season. Good time for that, though we will have some silly maps. If there were no other good changes other than nerfing terran, I would wait longer.

On October 14 2014 21:15 TheDwf wrote:

Wow, a race has a peak of performance after a major patch that revived it, what a surprise. Maybe we can wait the first 2015 season to determine if things go on or not?

On October 14 2014 21:35 xyzz wrote:

We can wait a few years if you want. I know all the struggling Terran ladder players want to keep the situation as it is for as long as possible. A vast majority of people in every balance thread of every game are just advantage seeking. Yet the truth is that since June Terran have won nearly all premier tournaments and we've had to endure more than half a dozen TvT finals. We've even had top 3 all Terran finishes. But let's wait untill 2016 before we determine that things are a bit off, just so we don't do any stupid mistakes, like buffing a race 3 times in a row for mysterious reasons.

On October 14 2014 21:35 xyzz wrote:

We can wait a few years if you want. I know all the struggling Terran ladder players want to keep the situation as it is for as long as possible. A vast majority of people in every balance thread of every game are just advantage seeking. Yet the truth is that since June Terran have won nearly all premier tournaments and we've had to endure more than half a dozen TvT finals. We've even had top 3 all Terran finishes. But let's wait untill 2016 before we determine that things are a bit off, just so we don't do any stupid mistakes, like buffing a race 3 times in a row for mysterious reasons.

On October 14 2014 21:21 Big J wrote:


What Swisslink writes is not entirely true. That only works if in those series, the inferior player actually does not take any game at all of the superior player.
However in reality, Snute and Bunny may lose all series against top-Koreans, yet, their actual recorded stats show that they do indeed win some games (say 4-10 for Snute and 5-10 for Bunny). Which then again makes for a difference in the stats that does not balance out. In fact, if we assume equal skill of Snute and Bunny, this difference should on average be the difference in balance of the matchups. (in this example one could assume that TvZ is 56:44)

I think this effect may come into play if you have actual diamond or below players play against professionals. But even a top-Master player would eventually take a game of soO. It may just take 100 tries, however, even that 1% chance to win has to be modelled. Only not modelling this chance produces a convergence - which then does not go towards 50%, but to 50+half the imbalance. (so 55% in the case of a 60:40 balance)

On October 14 2014 22:06 Wombat_NI wrote:
Haha xyzz really doesn't like Terran does he?

On October 14 2014 22:04 Tuczniak wrote:
Still taking 100 and more players is pointless. The skill difference is too big and actual balance is different for lower skilled players.

It doesn't matter if better player generally wins all the time or 55% of the time. It still works. It seemed to me you were arguing it's not 100% and you are right. But it doesn't matter.

even win%

On October 14 2014 18:20 Swisslink wrote:


Even during the BL/Infestor era, the ladder winrate was about even. Game was balanced all along?

... And yes, I know that's a bad example for balance. But so is your example. If you count in the entire Aligulac, games between full time Korean pros against some Europeans is countsd the same way, Innovation vs soO is. This leads to a HUGE amount of games which were decided, before the game even started, because one player is just superior in every way.
This again leads to an even win%, even if the top 100 Zerg lose to the top 100 Terran 100% of the time. And that would definitely mean that the game is imbalanced, even if Aligulac says something else.