|
On October 19 2014 20:55 playa wrote:
Personally, I don't think it's even possible to play a macro game without going colossi into 3 stargates, unless relying on your opponent to not like free wins.
Comments like this should get a warning. Those are exactly the type of comments we don't need in this forum. They add absolutely nothing to the conversation at all and create a poisonous air of balance whining and "dead gaem."
Rather, let's have a real conversation.
Your comment is also 100% false. There are many ways to play PvZ and the Zerg certainly never gets a free win.
|
On October 18 2014 04:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:
How much mins does Protoss normally bank?
Like, when Zerg and toss are banking money, and Zerg tries to bank 4k/4k, can toss just bank 0/4k and spend 4k on cannons?
Then the army wipe happens, you start remixing on tech units like temps and Phoenix's while Zerg has to fight through 4k worth of cannons?
Problem with that is that Zerg banks at a faster rate from having more bases throughout the game. A good Protoss never really banks minerals because they're constantly trying to destroy the Zerg econ. You can't make any of the "good" Protoss units instantly (Colossus, Carriers, Void Rays, etc.) but you CAN remax on any Zerg unit in one build cycle. So Zergs are trying to bank minerals while Protoss are trying to constantly produce and harass. Banking just doesn't really benefit Protoss.
|
On October 21 2014 05:15 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 04:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:
How much mins does Protoss normally bank?
Like, when Zerg and toss are banking money, and Zerg tries to bank 4k/4k, can toss just bank 0/4k and spend 4k on cannons?
Then the army wipe happens, you start remixing on tech units like temps and Phoenix's while Zerg has to fight through 4k worth of cannons? Problem with that is that Zerg banks at a faster rate from having more bases throughout the game. A good Protoss never really banks minerals because they're constantly trying to destroy the Zerg econ. You can't make any of the "good" Protoss units instantly (Colossus, Carriers, Void Rays, etc.) but you CAN remax on any Zerg unit in one build cycle. So Zergs are trying to bank minerals while Protoss are trying to constantly produce and harass. Banking just doesn't really benefit Protoss.
You make a good point about base numbers. A "bank equal amounts" argument requires the assumption of equal economic strength. This is not the case in any of the non-mirror matchups.
Then a better discussion point should be this:
What economic ratio per matchup should we make the jumping point on balance discussions.
The simplest benchmark to use would number of bases. For example, in mech vs bio X:X+[1-2] is the ratio where balance discussions hinges on. Where say "assuming bio makes this much" and "mech is this efficient" we can create a baseline for discussion.
"Tanks are not too strong because bio has enough expendable resources to act as fodder for the initial volley"
"Marauders are not OP since bio is mineral starved due to having to waste troops on tank volleys"
Etc...
What economic benchmark should we set as a balanced late game scenario in PvZ?
Is X:X+1 balanced?
Is X:X-Y balanced?
Is 4:X balanced?
Etc...
Until we have consensus as to what constitutes an even playing field, we will never be able to discuss individual unit stats.
|
On October 21 2014 09:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2014 05:15 DinoMight wrote:On October 18 2014 04:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:
How much mins does Protoss normally bank?
Like, when Zerg and toss are banking money, and Zerg tries to bank 4k/4k, can toss just bank 0/4k and spend 4k on cannons?
Then the army wipe happens, you start remixing on tech units like temps and Phoenix's while Zerg has to fight through 4k worth of cannons? Problem with that is that Zerg banks at a faster rate from having more bases throughout the game. A good Protoss never really banks minerals because they're constantly trying to destroy the Zerg econ. You can't make any of the "good" Protoss units instantly (Colossus, Carriers, Void Rays, etc.) but you CAN remax on any Zerg unit in one build cycle. So Zergs are trying to bank minerals while Protoss are trying to constantly produce and harass. Banking just doesn't really benefit Protoss. You make a good point about base numbers. A "bank equal amounts" argument requires the assumption of equal economic strength. This is not the case in any of the non-mirror matchups. Then a better discussion point should be this: What economic ratio per matchup should we make the jumping point on balance discussions. The simplest benchmark to use would number of bases. For example, in mech vs bio X:X+[1-2] is the ratio where balance discussions hinges on. Where say "assuming bio makes this much" and "mech is this efficient" we can create a baseline for discussion. "Tanks are not too strong because bio has enough expendable resources to act as fodder for the initial volley" "Marauders are not OP since bio is mineral starved due to having to waste troops on tank volleys" Etc... What economic benchmark should we set as a balanced late game scenario in PvZ? Is X:X+1 balanced? Is X:X-Y balanced? Is 4:X balanced? Etc... Until we have consensus as to what constitutes an even playing field, we will never be able to discuss individual unit stats.
Meta shifts completely invalidate that approach to game balancing. The only way you can use something like "X:X+1" as a benchmark for unit balance is if there is, and will always be, only one way to play every MU.
It's actually not that difficult to keep SC2 MUs in the 45/55 range, I feel. There are enough units and upgrades to allow an infinite combination of buffs and nerfs. The trouble is defining "balance" to begin with.
I'll invent a new sport to demonstrate. In my made up sport, Competitor A has to juggle 10 balls while Competitor B has to juggle 1 ball. Drop the balls and you lose. In this phase of the competition, Competitor A has only a 10% winrate. If after five minutes, all 11 balls are still in the air, Competitor A gets to roll a ten sided die. If it lands on any number but "1," he wins the game. If it lands on 1, Competitor B wins instead. In this phase of the competition, Competitor B has only a 10% winrate.
Both competitors have an equal chance of winning. Is the game balanced? If you mean "are the winrates balanced?" then certainly. But the sport is so poorly designed, who cares if it's 50-50? One player has to work much harder for his win in the first phase, while the other has absolutely nothing to do once the competition enters the second stage. Whether he wins or loses is, at that point, completely out of his control. All he can do is hope that the die roller "messes up."
No situation in SC2 has ever been so cut-and-dry as in my invented sport, but winrate balance is such a small part of the big picture, more often than not it's just a red herring.
|
Northern Ireland23745 Posts
On October 21 2014 05:11 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2014 20:55 playa wrote:
Personally, I don't think it's even possible to play a macro game without going colossi into 3 stargates, unless relying on your opponent to not like free wins. Comments like this should get a warning. Those are exactly the type of comments we don't need in this forum. They add absolutely nothing to the conversation at all and create a poisonous air of balance whining and "dead gaem." Rather, let's have a real conversation. Your comment is also 100% false. There are many ways to play PvZ and the Zerg certainly never gets a free win.
People mistake balance for 'this is how I think the game SHOULD play'
As it stands I have my issues with PvZ, but it's pretty damn balanced.
|
On October 21 2014 05:11 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2014 20:55 playa wrote:
Personally, I don't think it's even possible to play a macro game without going colossi into 3 stargates, unless relying on your opponent to not like free wins. Comments like this should get a warning. Those are exactly the type of comments we don't need in this forum. They add absolutely nothing to the conversation at all and create a poisonous air of balance whining and "dead gaem." Rather, let's have a real conversation. Your comment is also 100% false. There are many ways to play PvZ and the Zerg certainly never gets a free win.
That's crazy to me. This is a genuine opinion. I was watching State play and this is how he was playing. I looked at his win rate and it was at 59%. I've watched minigun play and he has talked about how a lot of Koreans are playing this way. After trying it myself, every other style seems like playing with a handicap. You can't have perfect scouting, and, even if you did, some maps are so small, that it wouldn't matter anyways. If they show up with 20 mutas, you have to be able to produce a meaningful amount of phoenix in time.
Since you need colossi versus hydras, it just seems like sooner than later, this will be the only way people play macro games. Void rays are pretty much the only unit you can mass without feeling extremely exploitable with. And, in turn, the more void rays you have, the more colossi it allows you to make.
Until Toss ends up winning a majority of base trade games, I have no clue how else one would play. Sure, I guess you could open phoenix, but then they go hydra/corruptor and reset your phoenix count, and now your opening is doing you no favors in stopping muta switches. I stand by that comment. People should be thankful, because this way of playing is way easier than any other way, that's for sure.
|
On October 21 2014 10:08 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2014 09:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 21 2014 05:15 DinoMight wrote:On October 18 2014 04:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:
How much mins does Protoss normally bank?
Like, when Zerg and toss are banking money, and Zerg tries to bank 4k/4k, can toss just bank 0/4k and spend 4k on cannons?
Then the army wipe happens, you start remixing on tech units like temps and Phoenix's while Zerg has to fight through 4k worth of cannons? Problem with that is that Zerg banks at a faster rate from having more bases throughout the game. A good Protoss never really banks minerals because they're constantly trying to destroy the Zerg econ. You can't make any of the "good" Protoss units instantly (Colossus, Carriers, Void Rays, etc.) but you CAN remax on any Zerg unit in one build cycle. So Zergs are trying to bank minerals while Protoss are trying to constantly produce and harass. Banking just doesn't really benefit Protoss. You make a good point about base numbers. A "bank equal amounts" argument requires the assumption of equal economic strength. This is not the case in any of the non-mirror matchups. Then a better discussion point should be this: What economic ratio per matchup should we make the jumping point on balance discussions. The simplest benchmark to use would number of bases. For example, in mech vs bio X:X+[1-2] is the ratio where balance discussions hinges on. Where say "assuming bio makes this much" and "mech is this efficient" we can create a baseline for discussion. "Tanks are not too strong because bio has enough expendable resources to act as fodder for the initial volley" "Marauders are not OP since bio is mineral starved due to having to waste troops on tank volleys" Etc... What economic benchmark should we set as a balanced late game scenario in PvZ? Is X:X+1 balanced? Is X:X-Y balanced? Is 4:X balanced? Etc... Until we have consensus as to what constitutes an even playing field, we will never be able to discuss individual unit stats. Meta shifts completely invalidate that approach to game balancing. The only way you can use something like "X:X+1" as a benchmark for unit balance is if there is, and will always be, only one way to play every MU. It's actually not that difficult to keep SC2 MUs in the 45/55 range, I feel. There are enough units and upgrades to allow an infinite combination of buffs and nerfs. The trouble is defining "balance" to begin with. I'll invent a new sport to demonstrate. In my made up sport, Competitor A has to juggle 10 balls while Competitor B has to juggle 1 ball. Drop the balls and you lose. In this phase of the competition, Competitor A has only a 10% winrate. If after five minutes, all 11 balls are still in the air, Competitor A gets to roll a ten sided die. If it lands on any number but "1," he wins the game. If it lands on 1, Competitor B wins instead. In this phase of the competition, Competitor B has only a 10% winrate. Both competitors have an equal chance of winning. Is the game balanced? If you mean "are the winrates balanced?" then certainly. But the sport is so poorly designed, who cares if it's 50-50? One player has to work much harder for his win in the first phase, while the other has absolutely nothing to do once the competition enters the second stage. Whether he wins or loses is, at that point, completely out of his control. All he can do is hope that the die roller "messes up." No situation in SC2 has ever been so cut-and-dry as in my invented sport, but winrate balance is such a small part of the big picture, more often than not it's just a red herring.
The bench mark is arbitrary. Notice I did not talk about win rate, I talked about being able to have a context in which to discuss unit interaction and gameflow dynamics.
Sure metagames can always shift (and they should) but that is not the discussion.
The discussion is very simply "assuming baseline A, does unit B's interaction with unit C produce the results we want it to have in an idealized scenario--and then maps and metagame shifts move in reference to that idealized scenario."
Here's an example.
50 minerals is the standard cost of a basic unit (worker/tier1)
Zerg gets 2 units
Terran gets 1 unit
Protoss pays twice as much for its unit.
All 3 units (zergling/marine/zealot) are units in reference to the basic unit (the worker) and its design is based off of that baseline. By having that baseline to frame the discussion, we get to discuss how the game is expected to play out and not simply discuss how the games conclude. We should not care who wins, we should only care what interactions happen.
|
On October 21 2014 05:11 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2014 20:55 playa wrote:
Personally, I don't think it's even possible to play a macro game without going colossi into 3 stargates, unless relying on your opponent to not like free wins. Comments like this should get a warning. Those are exactly the type of comments we don't need in this forum. They add absolutely nothing to the conversation at all and create a poisonous air of balance whining and "dead gaem." Rather, let's have a real conversation. Your comment is also 100% false. There are many ways to play PvZ and the Zerg certainly never gets a free win.
100% agree but I guess this thread has just became a battle.net sub forum now.
I wish we could come back to what the OP intended it to be....
|
On October 21 2014 15:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2014 10:08 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 21 2014 09:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 21 2014 05:15 DinoMight wrote:On October 18 2014 04:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:
How much mins does Protoss normally bank?
Like, when Zerg and toss are banking money, and Zerg tries to bank 4k/4k, can toss just bank 0/4k and spend 4k on cannons?
Then the army wipe happens, you start remixing on tech units like temps and Phoenix's while Zerg has to fight through 4k worth of cannons? Problem with that is that Zerg banks at a faster rate from having more bases throughout the game. A good Protoss never really banks minerals because they're constantly trying to destroy the Zerg econ. You can't make any of the "good" Protoss units instantly (Colossus, Carriers, Void Rays, etc.) but you CAN remax on any Zerg unit in one build cycle. So Zergs are trying to bank minerals while Protoss are trying to constantly produce and harass. Banking just doesn't really benefit Protoss. You make a good point about base numbers. A "bank equal amounts" argument requires the assumption of equal economic strength. This is not the case in any of the non-mirror matchups. Then a better discussion point should be this: What economic ratio per matchup should we make the jumping point on balance discussions. The simplest benchmark to use would number of bases. For example, in mech vs bio X:X+[1-2] is the ratio where balance discussions hinges on. Where say "assuming bio makes this much" and "mech is this efficient" we can create a baseline for discussion. "Tanks are not too strong because bio has enough expendable resources to act as fodder for the initial volley" "Marauders are not OP since bio is mineral starved due to having to waste troops on tank volleys" Etc... What economic benchmark should we set as a balanced late game scenario in PvZ? Is X:X+1 balanced? Is X:X-Y balanced? Is 4:X balanced? Etc... Until we have consensus as to what constitutes an even playing field, we will never be able to discuss individual unit stats. Meta shifts completely invalidate that approach to game balancing. The only way you can use something like "X:X+1" as a benchmark for unit balance is if there is, and will always be, only one way to play every MU. It's actually not that difficult to keep SC2 MUs in the 45/55 range, I feel. There are enough units and upgrades to allow an infinite combination of buffs and nerfs. The trouble is defining "balance" to begin with. I'll invent a new sport to demonstrate. In my made up sport, Competitor A has to juggle 10 balls while Competitor B has to juggle 1 ball. Drop the balls and you lose. In this phase of the competition, Competitor A has only a 10% winrate. If after five minutes, all 11 balls are still in the air, Competitor A gets to roll a ten sided die. If it lands on any number but "1," he wins the game. If it lands on 1, Competitor B wins instead. In this phase of the competition, Competitor B has only a 10% winrate. Both competitors have an equal chance of winning. Is the game balanced? If you mean "are the winrates balanced?" then certainly. But the sport is so poorly designed, who cares if it's 50-50? One player has to work much harder for his win in the first phase, while the other has absolutely nothing to do once the competition enters the second stage. Whether he wins or loses is, at that point, completely out of his control. All he can do is hope that the die roller "messes up." No situation in SC2 has ever been so cut-and-dry as in my invented sport, but winrate balance is such a small part of the big picture, more often than not it's just a red herring. The bench mark is arbitrary. Notice I did not talk about win rate, I talked about being able to have a context in which to discuss unit interaction and gameflow dynamics. Sure metagames can always shift (and they should) but that is not the discussion. The discussion is very simply "assuming baseline A, does unit B's interaction with unit C produce the results we want it to have in an idealized scenario--and then maps and metagame shifts move in reference to that idealized scenario." Here's an example. 50 minerals is the standard cost of a basic unit (worker/tier1) Zerg gets 2 units Terran gets 1 unit Protoss pays twice as much for its unit. All 3 units (zergling/marine/zealot) are units in reference to the basic unit (the worker) and its design is based off of that baseline. By having that baseline to frame the discussion, we get to discuss how the game is expected to play out and not simply discuss how the games conclude. We should not care who wins, we should only care what interactions happen.
Economic considerations are only one of many (more complex, I think) factors that influence unit interactions. Nothing in the ratio you mention helps us to predict that Zerglings will have interesting dynamics when fighting units like Hellions, WMs, and Banelings, interactions where split-second decision making and mechanical skill are rewarded, but are reduced to "A-move" units in most other scenarios in the game. If the Zergling's role changes radically throughout the game depending on what units it's fighting, its balance becomes much harder to pin down.
Marines are hardly OP without Bunkers, Stim, shields, Medivacs, Terran splash, meatshields, their ability to clump... but all of those fundamentally change how the Marine behaves in the game, to the point where if Protoss didn't have Colossi, they'd be right fucked.
I don't see how an economy-centric analysis of the game can possibly tell us at what point the Marine becomes OP versus Protoss. Maybe I'm overlooking something, or trying to use your thought process to do something it wasn't meant to do.
|
On October 21 2014 16:02 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2014 15:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 21 2014 10:08 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 21 2014 09:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 21 2014 05:15 DinoMight wrote:On October 18 2014 04:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:
How much mins does Protoss normally bank?
Like, when Zerg and toss are banking money, and Zerg tries to bank 4k/4k, can toss just bank 0/4k and spend 4k on cannons?
Then the army wipe happens, you start remixing on tech units like temps and Phoenix's while Zerg has to fight through 4k worth of cannons? Problem with that is that Zerg banks at a faster rate from having more bases throughout the game. A good Protoss never really banks minerals because they're constantly trying to destroy the Zerg econ. You can't make any of the "good" Protoss units instantly (Colossus, Carriers, Void Rays, etc.) but you CAN remax on any Zerg unit in one build cycle. So Zergs are trying to bank minerals while Protoss are trying to constantly produce and harass. Banking just doesn't really benefit Protoss. You make a good point about base numbers. A "bank equal amounts" argument requires the assumption of equal economic strength. This is not the case in any of the non-mirror matchups. Then a better discussion point should be this: What economic ratio per matchup should we make the jumping point on balance discussions. The simplest benchmark to use would number of bases. For example, in mech vs bio X:X+[1-2] is the ratio where balance discussions hinges on. Where say "assuming bio makes this much" and "mech is this efficient" we can create a baseline for discussion. "Tanks are not too strong because bio has enough expendable resources to act as fodder for the initial volley" "Marauders are not OP since bio is mineral starved due to having to waste troops on tank volleys" Etc... What economic benchmark should we set as a balanced late game scenario in PvZ? Is X:X+1 balanced? Is X:X-Y balanced? Is 4:X balanced? Etc... Until we have consensus as to what constitutes an even playing field, we will never be able to discuss individual unit stats. Meta shifts completely invalidate that approach to game balancing. The only way you can use something like "X:X+1" as a benchmark for unit balance is if there is, and will always be, only one way to play every MU. It's actually not that difficult to keep SC2 MUs in the 45/55 range, I feel. There are enough units and upgrades to allow an infinite combination of buffs and nerfs. The trouble is defining "balance" to begin with. I'll invent a new sport to demonstrate. In my made up sport, Competitor A has to juggle 10 balls while Competitor B has to juggle 1 ball. Drop the balls and you lose. In this phase of the competition, Competitor A has only a 10% winrate. If after five minutes, all 11 balls are still in the air, Competitor A gets to roll a ten sided die. If it lands on any number but "1," he wins the game. If it lands on 1, Competitor B wins instead. In this phase of the competition, Competitor B has only a 10% winrate. Both competitors have an equal chance of winning. Is the game balanced? If you mean "are the winrates balanced?" then certainly. But the sport is so poorly designed, who cares if it's 50-50? One player has to work much harder for his win in the first phase, while the other has absolutely nothing to do once the competition enters the second stage. Whether he wins or loses is, at that point, completely out of his control. All he can do is hope that the die roller "messes up." No situation in SC2 has ever been so cut-and-dry as in my invented sport, but winrate balance is such a small part of the big picture, more often than not it's just a red herring. The bench mark is arbitrary. Notice I did not talk about win rate, I talked about being able to have a context in which to discuss unit interaction and gameflow dynamics. Sure metagames can always shift (and they should) but that is not the discussion. The discussion is very simply "assuming baseline A, does unit B's interaction with unit C produce the results we want it to have in an idealized scenario--and then maps and metagame shifts move in reference to that idealized scenario." Here's an example. 50 minerals is the standard cost of a basic unit (worker/tier1) Zerg gets 2 units Terran gets 1 unit Protoss pays twice as much for its unit. All 3 units (zergling/marine/zealot) are units in reference to the basic unit (the worker) and its design is based off of that baseline. By having that baseline to frame the discussion, we get to discuss how the game is expected to play out and not simply discuss how the games conclude. We should not care who wins, we should only care what interactions happen. Economic considerations are only one of many (more complex, I think) factors that influence unit interactions. Nothing in the ratio you mention helps us to predict that Zerglings will have interesting dynamics when fighting units like Hellions, WMs, and Banelings, interactions where split-second decision making and mechanical skill are rewarded, but are reduced to "A-move" units in most other scenarios in the game. If the Zergling's role changes radically throughout the game depending on what units it's fighting, its balance becomes much harder to pin down. Marines are hardly OP without Bunkers, Stim, shields, Medivacs, Terran splash, meatshields, their ability to clump... but all of those fundamentally change how the Marine behaves in the game, to the point where if Protoss didn't have Colossi, they'd be right fucked. I don't see how an economy-centric analysis of the game can possibly tell us at what point the Marine becomes OP versus Protoss. Maybe I'm overlooking something, or trying to use your thought process to do something it wasn't meant to do.
Economic analysis tells us how many units each side has. Before we can talk about how unit A interacts with unit B we should discuss how many unit A's are interacting with unit B's.
Sending 1 zergling vs 200 marines tells us nothing.
Sending 400 zerglings vs 1 marine tells us nothing.
Economic analysis tells us how many lings to expect vs how many marines to expect.
|
On October 21 2014 15:59 Gwavajuice wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2014 05:11 DinoMight wrote:On October 19 2014 20:55 playa wrote:
Personally, I don't think it's even possible to play a macro game without going colossi into 3 stargates, unless relying on your opponent to not like free wins. Comments like this should get a warning. Those are exactly the type of comments we don't need in this forum. They add absolutely nothing to the conversation at all and create a poisonous air of balance whining and "dead gaem." Rather, let's have a real conversation. Your comment is also 100% false. There are many ways to play PvZ and the Zerg certainly never gets a free win. 100% agree but I guess this thread has just became a battle.net sub forum now. I wish we could come back to what the OP intended it to be....
When your race is at 44% in a matchup and the win rates via game length reflect Toss winning the majority of their all-in games, well, that 44% becomes even less when talking about macro games. Fact: there are not many ways at all to consistently win macro games. The math doesn't add up. There's either not many viable ways of playing or a lot of players are throwing games. This is common sense. This isn't some kinda conspiracy.
|
On October 21 2014 16:14 playa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2014 15:59 Gwavajuice wrote:On October 21 2014 05:11 DinoMight wrote:On October 19 2014 20:55 playa wrote:
Personally, I don't think it's even possible to play a macro game without going colossi into 3 stargates, unless relying on your opponent to not like free wins. Comments like this should get a warning. Those are exactly the type of comments we don't need in this forum. They add absolutely nothing to the conversation at all and create a poisonous air of balance whining and "dead gaem." Rather, let's have a real conversation. Your comment is also 100% false. There are many ways to play PvZ and the Zerg certainly never gets a free win. 100% agree but I guess this thread has just became a battle.net sub forum now. I wish we could come back to what the OP intended it to be.... When your race is at 44% in a matchup and the win rates via game length reflect Toss winning the majority of their all-in games, well, that 44% becomes even less when talking about macro games. Fact: there are not many ways at all to consistently win macro games. The math doesn't add up. There's either not many viable ways of playing or a lot of players are throwing games. This is common sense. This isn't some kinda conspiracy.
50% winrate (+/-) 6% is damn even.
|
On October 21 2014 16:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2014 16:14 playa wrote:On October 21 2014 15:59 Gwavajuice wrote:On October 21 2014 05:11 DinoMight wrote:On October 19 2014 20:55 playa wrote:
Personally, I don't think it's even possible to play a macro game without going colossi into 3 stargates, unless relying on your opponent to not like free wins. Comments like this should get a warning. Those are exactly the type of comments we don't need in this forum. They add absolutely nothing to the conversation at all and create a poisonous air of balance whining and "dead gaem." Rather, let's have a real conversation. Your comment is also 100% false. There are many ways to play PvZ and the Zerg certainly never gets a free win. 100% agree but I guess this thread has just became a battle.net sub forum now. I wish we could come back to what the OP intended it to be.... When your race is at 44% in a matchup and the win rates via game length reflect Toss winning the majority of their all-in games, well, that 44% becomes even less when talking about macro games. Fact: there are not many ways at all to consistently win macro games. The math doesn't add up. There's either not many viable ways of playing or a lot of players are throwing games. This is common sense. This isn't some kinda conspiracy. 50% winrate (+/-) 6% is damn even.
No it really is not
|
On October 21 2014 16:21 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2014 16:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 21 2014 16:14 playa wrote:On October 21 2014 15:59 Gwavajuice wrote:On October 21 2014 05:11 DinoMight wrote:On October 19 2014 20:55 playa wrote:
Personally, I don't think it's even possible to play a macro game without going colossi into 3 stargates, unless relying on your opponent to not like free wins. Comments like this should get a warning. Those are exactly the type of comments we don't need in this forum. They add absolutely nothing to the conversation at all and create a poisonous air of balance whining and "dead gaem." Rather, let's have a real conversation. Your comment is also 100% false. There are many ways to play PvZ and the Zerg certainly never gets a free win. 100% agree but I guess this thread has just became a battle.net sub forum now. I wish we could come back to what the OP intended it to be.... When your race is at 44% in a matchup and the win rates via game length reflect Toss winning the majority of their all-in games, well, that 44% becomes even less when talking about macro games. Fact: there are not many ways at all to consistently win macro games. The math doesn't add up. There's either not many viable ways of playing or a lot of players are throwing games. This is common sense. This isn't some kinda conspiracy. 50% winrate (+/-) 6% is damn even. No it really is not
What do you consider acceptable margin of error?
|
On October 21 2014 16:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2014 16:21 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 21 2014 16:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 21 2014 16:14 playa wrote:On October 21 2014 15:59 Gwavajuice wrote:On October 21 2014 05:11 DinoMight wrote:On October 19 2014 20:55 playa wrote:
Personally, I don't think it's even possible to play a macro game without going colossi into 3 stargates, unless relying on your opponent to not like free wins. Comments like this should get a warning. Those are exactly the type of comments we don't need in this forum. They add absolutely nothing to the conversation at all and create a poisonous air of balance whining and "dead gaem." Rather, let's have a real conversation. Your comment is also 100% false. There are many ways to play PvZ and the Zerg certainly never gets a free win. 100% agree but I guess this thread has just became a battle.net sub forum now. I wish we could come back to what the OP intended it to be.... When your race is at 44% in a matchup and the win rates via game length reflect Toss winning the majority of their all-in games, well, that 44% becomes even less when talking about macro games. Fact: there are not many ways at all to consistently win macro games. The math doesn't add up. There's either not many viable ways of playing or a lot of players are throwing games. This is common sense. This isn't some kinda conspiracy. 50% winrate (+/-) 6% is damn even. No it really is not What do you consider acceptable margin of error?
Hard to say, but 6% points is pretty huge imo
|
On October 21 2014 16:14 playa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2014 15:59 Gwavajuice wrote:On October 21 2014 05:11 DinoMight wrote:On October 19 2014 20:55 playa wrote:
Personally, I don't think it's even possible to play a macro game without going colossi into 3 stargates, unless relying on your opponent to not like free wins. Comments like this should get a warning. Those are exactly the type of comments we don't need in this forum. They add absolutely nothing to the conversation at all and create a poisonous air of balance whining and "dead gaem." Rather, let's have a real conversation. Your comment is also 100% false. There are many ways to play PvZ and the Zerg certainly never gets a free win. 100% agree but I guess this thread has just became a battle.net sub forum now. I wish we could come back to what the OP intended it to be.... When your race is at 44% in a matchup and the win rates via game length reflect Toss winning the majority of their all-in games, well, that 44% becomes even less when talking about macro games. Fact: there are not many ways at all to consistently win macro games. The math doesn't add up. There's either not many viable ways of playing or a lot of players are throwing games. This is common sense. This isn't some kinda conspiracy.
Ok then, just proove your point with detailed analysis and consistent examples from real games, describe the situation and list what aspects of the game should be adressed (and, if you can : how?)
Then we'll have a real base for a discussion, cause atm it's not the case, and you're not making any point tbh.
|
On October 21 2014 16:25 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2014 16:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 21 2014 16:21 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 21 2014 16:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 21 2014 16:14 playa wrote:On October 21 2014 15:59 Gwavajuice wrote:On October 21 2014 05:11 DinoMight wrote:On October 19 2014 20:55 playa wrote:
Personally, I don't think it's even possible to play a macro game without going colossi into 3 stargates, unless relying on your opponent to not like free wins. Comments like this should get a warning. Those are exactly the type of comments we don't need in this forum. They add absolutely nothing to the conversation at all and create a poisonous air of balance whining and "dead gaem." Rather, let's have a real conversation. Your comment is also 100% false. There are many ways to play PvZ and the Zerg certainly never gets a free win. 100% agree but I guess this thread has just became a battle.net sub forum now. I wish we could come back to what the OP intended it to be.... When your race is at 44% in a matchup and the win rates via game length reflect Toss winning the majority of their all-in games, well, that 44% becomes even less when talking about macro games. Fact: there are not many ways at all to consistently win macro games. The math doesn't add up. There's either not many viable ways of playing or a lot of players are throwing games. This is common sense. This isn't some kinda conspiracy. 50% winrate (+/-) 6% is damn even. No it really is not What do you consider acceptable margin of error? Hard to say, but 6% points is pretty huge imo
It really shouldn't be a hard thing to know.
What is comfortable or you as a margin of error. You either know what you think it should be or you don't know what you think it should be.
You, for example, don't know what you think it should be.
To me, 10% is too high, and 5%-9% is acceptable, 0-4 is too close to call.
Unless we have definitive terms on what we want achieved we will never be able to discuss anything. We need to know what numbers is acceptable and then begin discussion with the acceptance of those numbers. Otherwise we end up stuck arguing semantics when we could be arguing specifics.
|
On October 21 2014 16:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2014 16:25 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 21 2014 16:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 21 2014 16:21 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 21 2014 16:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 21 2014 16:14 playa wrote:On October 21 2014 15:59 Gwavajuice wrote:On October 21 2014 05:11 DinoMight wrote:On October 19 2014 20:55 playa wrote:
Personally, I don't think it's even possible to play a macro game without going colossi into 3 stargates, unless relying on your opponent to not like free wins. Comments like this should get a warning. Those are exactly the type of comments we don't need in this forum. They add absolutely nothing to the conversation at all and create a poisonous air of balance whining and "dead gaem." Rather, let's have a real conversation. Your comment is also 100% false. There are many ways to play PvZ and the Zerg certainly never gets a free win. 100% agree but I guess this thread has just became a battle.net sub forum now. I wish we could come back to what the OP intended it to be.... When your race is at 44% in a matchup and the win rates via game length reflect Toss winning the majority of their all-in games, well, that 44% becomes even less when talking about macro games. Fact: there are not many ways at all to consistently win macro games. The math doesn't add up. There's either not many viable ways of playing or a lot of players are throwing games. This is common sense. This isn't some kinda conspiracy. 50% winrate (+/-) 6% is damn even. No it really is not What do you consider acceptable margin of error? Hard to say, but 6% points is pretty huge imo It really shouldn't be a hard thing to know. What is comfortable or you as a margin of error. You either know what you think it should be or you don't know what you think it should be. You, for example, don't know what you think it should be. To me, 10% is too high, and 5%-9% is acceptable, 0-4 is too close to call. Unless we have definitive terms on what we want achieved we will never be able to discuss anything. We need to know what numbers is acceptable and then begin discussion with the acceptance of those numbers. Otherwise we end up stuck arguing semantics when we could be arguing specifics.
56:44 is already over 10% off. So i guess it is too high for you as well?
It shouldn't be higher than 53:47 imo, and even that is already somewhat questionable.
|
On October 21 2014 16:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2014 16:02 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 21 2014 15:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 21 2014 10:08 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 21 2014 09:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 21 2014 05:15 DinoMight wrote:On October 18 2014 04:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:
How much mins does Protoss normally bank?
Like, when Zerg and toss are banking money, and Zerg tries to bank 4k/4k, can toss just bank 0/4k and spend 4k on cannons?
Then the army wipe happens, you start remixing on tech units like temps and Phoenix's while Zerg has to fight through 4k worth of cannons? Problem with that is that Zerg banks at a faster rate from having more bases throughout the game. A good Protoss never really banks minerals because they're constantly trying to destroy the Zerg econ. You can't make any of the "good" Protoss units instantly (Colossus, Carriers, Void Rays, etc.) but you CAN remax on any Zerg unit in one build cycle. So Zergs are trying to bank minerals while Protoss are trying to constantly produce and harass. Banking just doesn't really benefit Protoss. You make a good point about base numbers. A "bank equal amounts" argument requires the assumption of equal economic strength. This is not the case in any of the non-mirror matchups. Then a better discussion point should be this: What economic ratio per matchup should we make the jumping point on balance discussions. The simplest benchmark to use would number of bases. For example, in mech vs bio X:X+[1-2] is the ratio where balance discussions hinges on. Where say "assuming bio makes this much" and "mech is this efficient" we can create a baseline for discussion. "Tanks are not too strong because bio has enough expendable resources to act as fodder for the initial volley" "Marauders are not OP since bio is mineral starved due to having to waste troops on tank volleys" Etc... What economic benchmark should we set as a balanced late game scenario in PvZ? Is X:X+1 balanced? Is X:X-Y balanced? Is 4:X balanced? Etc... Until we have consensus as to what constitutes an even playing field, we will never be able to discuss individual unit stats. Meta shifts completely invalidate that approach to game balancing. The only way you can use something like "X:X+1" as a benchmark for unit balance is if there is, and will always be, only one way to play every MU. It's actually not that difficult to keep SC2 MUs in the 45/55 range, I feel. There are enough units and upgrades to allow an infinite combination of buffs and nerfs. The trouble is defining "balance" to begin with. I'll invent a new sport to demonstrate. In my made up sport, Competitor A has to juggle 10 balls while Competitor B has to juggle 1 ball. Drop the balls and you lose. In this phase of the competition, Competitor A has only a 10% winrate. If after five minutes, all 11 balls are still in the air, Competitor A gets to roll a ten sided die. If it lands on any number but "1," he wins the game. If it lands on 1, Competitor B wins instead. In this phase of the competition, Competitor B has only a 10% winrate. Both competitors have an equal chance of winning. Is the game balanced? If you mean "are the winrates balanced?" then certainly. But the sport is so poorly designed, who cares if it's 50-50? One player has to work much harder for his win in the first phase, while the other has absolutely nothing to do once the competition enters the second stage. Whether he wins or loses is, at that point, completely out of his control. All he can do is hope that the die roller "messes up." No situation in SC2 has ever been so cut-and-dry as in my invented sport, but winrate balance is such a small part of the big picture, more often than not it's just a red herring. The bench mark is arbitrary. Notice I did not talk about win rate, I talked about being able to have a context in which to discuss unit interaction and gameflow dynamics. Sure metagames can always shift (and they should) but that is not the discussion. The discussion is very simply "assuming baseline A, does unit B's interaction with unit C produce the results we want it to have in an idealized scenario--and then maps and metagame shifts move in reference to that idealized scenario." Here's an example. 50 minerals is the standard cost of a basic unit (worker/tier1) Zerg gets 2 units Terran gets 1 unit Protoss pays twice as much for its unit. All 3 units (zergling/marine/zealot) are units in reference to the basic unit (the worker) and its design is based off of that baseline. By having that baseline to frame the discussion, we get to discuss how the game is expected to play out and not simply discuss how the games conclude. We should not care who wins, we should only care what interactions happen. Economic considerations are only one of many (more complex, I think) factors that influence unit interactions. Nothing in the ratio you mention helps us to predict that Zerglings will have interesting dynamics when fighting units like Hellions, WMs, and Banelings, interactions where split-second decision making and mechanical skill are rewarded, but are reduced to "A-move" units in most other scenarios in the game. If the Zergling's role changes radically throughout the game depending on what units it's fighting, its balance becomes much harder to pin down. Marines are hardly OP without Bunkers, Stim, shields, Medivacs, Terran splash, meatshields, their ability to clump... but all of those fundamentally change how the Marine behaves in the game, to the point where if Protoss didn't have Colossi, they'd be right fucked. I don't see how an economy-centric analysis of the game can possibly tell us at what point the Marine becomes OP versus Protoss. Maybe I'm overlooking something, or trying to use your thought process to do something it wasn't meant to do. Economic analysis tells us how many units each side has. Before we can talk about how unit A interacts with unit B we should discuss how many unit A's are interacting with unit B's. Sending 1 zergling vs 200 marines tells us nothing. Sending 400 zerglings vs 1 marine tells us nothing. Economic analysis tells us how many lings to expect vs how many marines to expect.
Could you make some kind of statement re: the state of the game, so I can see your philosophy in action? Right now it just sounds like you're saying "how much units cost is important," which is hard to disagree with but also... not very useful. I'm sure you're saying something more nuanced than that, and an illustration would really help!
|
On October 21 2014 16:42 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2014 16:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 21 2014 16:25 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 21 2014 16:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 21 2014 16:21 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 21 2014 16:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 21 2014 16:14 playa wrote:On October 21 2014 15:59 Gwavajuice wrote:On October 21 2014 05:11 DinoMight wrote:On October 19 2014 20:55 playa wrote:
Personally, I don't think it's even possible to play a macro game without going colossi into 3 stargates, unless relying on your opponent to not like free wins. Comments like this should get a warning. Those are exactly the type of comments we don't need in this forum. They add absolutely nothing to the conversation at all and create a poisonous air of balance whining and "dead gaem." Rather, let's have a real conversation. Your comment is also 100% false. There are many ways to play PvZ and the Zerg certainly never gets a free win. 100% agree but I guess this thread has just became a battle.net sub forum now. I wish we could come back to what the OP intended it to be.... When your race is at 44% in a matchup and the win rates via game length reflect Toss winning the majority of their all-in games, well, that 44% becomes even less when talking about macro games. Fact: there are not many ways at all to consistently win macro games. The math doesn't add up. There's either not many viable ways of playing or a lot of players are throwing games. This is common sense. This isn't some kinda conspiracy. 50% winrate (+/-) 6% is damn even. No it really is not What do you consider acceptable margin of error? Hard to say, but 6% points is pretty huge imo It really shouldn't be a hard thing to know. What is comfortable or you as a margin of error. You either know what you think it should be or you don't know what you think it should be. You, for example, don't know what you think it should be. To me, 10% is too high, and 5%-9% is acceptable, 0-4 is too close to call. Unless we have definitive terms on what we want achieved we will never be able to discuss anything. We need to know what numbers is acceptable and then begin discussion with the acceptance of those numbers. Otherwise we end up stuck arguing semantics when we could be arguing specifics. 56:44 is already over 10% off. So i guess it is too high for you as well? It shouldn't be higher than 53:47 imo, and even that is already somewhat questionable.
Don't invent fake math please.
56:44 is +\- 6
53:47 is +\- 3
60/40 is +\- 10
According to you, a 3% variance is too high? Because that sound stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
