Designated Balance Discussion Thread - Page 537

On July 01 2013 17:52 eXdeath wrote:


Shouldn't the targeted probe turn red (like a seeker missile target)? If the attacker can choose which target to fire at, I feel the defender should know which one it is and then have a chance of isolating it from the rest.

On July 01 2013 21:43 SsDrKosS wrote:
When WM burrows fires its missile, it will now have an active skill (no mana. no costs) called 'reload' (or 'stabilization' because the initial ability was 'unstable payload'!) which have 25±10 seconds cooldown (as well as its normal 40 second weapon cooldown). So if the players are noob, they will def. forget to reload and miss some shots, but in high level plays, pros will just push one hot key (perhaps 'R' key?) and everything is just the same as nornal.

On July 02 2013 23:43 Rabiator wrote:

I kinda like the idea, BUT it should be applied to other units too.

The Swarm Host could really use this kind of a button to activate and it might even make the unit better, because often enough Zerg players have their SHs unburrowed to control when the locusts are spawned. With a trigger button it would remove this necessity while taking away the "autofire and forget" way of using them.

Carriers could use active button clicks to produce new Interceptors in exchange for reducing the cost of them to zero. It has always been kinda unfair that Broodlords spawn their Broodlings without any cost while Interceptors cost resources. Due to the maximized concentration of Marines and Hydralisks the Interceptors are shot down pretty easily and this is one of the reasons why the Carrier is so damn useless.

Reapers could have their anti-building-explosives back again.

On July 05 2013 05:00 highsis wrote:
Korean scene balance

source: playxp

12-13 proleague from round 6, WCS Season 1 Final, WCS Season 2 star league



PvT

19 : 29

40 : 60



TvZ

28 : 13

68 : 32



ZvP

25 : 33

43 : 57



====================================================



over winrate vs other races

protoss : 52승 54패 (49.0%)

terran : 57승 32패 (64.0%)

zerg : 38승 61패 (38.3%)



Matchup winrate sum

protoss : 97

terran : 128

zerg: 75



====================================================



proleague

protoss : 27승 28패 (49.1%)

terran : 21승 17패 (55.2%)

zerg : 22승 25패 (46.8%)



WCS Season 2 starlegue qualified

protoss : 4 players

terran: 7 players

zerg : 5 players






Quote, DK: "there is no imbalance in any level at the moment."






God I hate Blizzard. Terran's absurdly high winrate(late WOL zerg had 57% winrate when they were called OP. Now terran has 64% winrate. WTF?!) and their equally absurdly high stat of units.

remember warhound(basically unstoppable when combined with helbats), shredder(dps equal to storm and larger range, infinite lifespan), medivac heal boost(which makes a marauder to survive 26 seconds under full storm.).... if one of these made it into the final version of HOTS terran would have hit 95% winrate vs zerg or toss. I would have trashed those ideas the moment they were suggested if I were the developer.

I just don't trust Blizzard regarding their understanding of the game, given the list of ridiculous OP units they tried to introduce and their inabilty to grasp the imblance at the moment.

On July 05 2013 05:58 Lock0n wrote:
Rofl so dumb how people skew stats, Innovation probably contributed to 45.647% of the Terran wins from your data above. Here's a new stat for you: Any sample size less than 5498 games is statistically insignificant.

On July 05 2013 05:51 iky43210 wrote:

talk about cherry picking results. Its funny you don't mention the OSL qualifier results, 10P-7T-5Z. Or the fact that Ro48 is currently 19P-12T-17Z with very grim possibility for Ro32.

This is the KR only winrates for June http://i.imgur.com/0ciWmTd.png But lets not use it because it doesn't fit in with your Terran is op agenda.

Also proleague games are hogwash. Their structure are far different from your usual tourney style tourneys. You would have unequal skilled opponents facing each other, with lot of mind games and sniping involved. And some of those numbers just look flat out wrong or cherry picked.

On July 05 2013 13:48 highsis wrote:





the stat only inclucde highest leagues in each group to show protoss/zerg underperformance.

On July 05 2013 14:47 Rabiator wrote:

Learn to do statistics with proper sample size first before making any more please. You are wasting your time and are embarrassing yourself.

You need to make as many factors irrelevant as you can to get "average" results ...
- maps
- individual players
- prevalence of matchups (WCS isnt a round robin tournament, so "luck of the draw" is a deciding factor)
- unusual surprise tactics (cheese) which havent been as much of a factor in previous GSLs, but which might have influenced the "average results" in the bo1 o32 format of the OSL for example. Weaker players might succeed with a one-off cheese against stronger players.

The only way to do that is to take A LOT MORE data from A LOT MORE players and for all maps.

On July 05 2013 14:56 highsis wrote:




I didn't make the stat myself. It's just me reading it off Playxp thread and raging over it, then being taken more seriously than expected because I was more used to 4chan-ish mood of Playxp, and being called a fool for this recklessness. I did update non-cherry-picked stat on june 16th balance update thread, so let's put further comments there as that thread seems more active and I don't wanna be jumping back and forth.

On July 05 2013 16:33 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Something interesting i've noticed after listening to the Flash interview was that, apparently, Blizzard does not take any feedback from him, maybe not even from his team. Yet Blizzard say they talk to players and "personalities", so, who are they actually talking to? Casters and foreign players?

It would be pathetic if Blizz didn't use the numeros Korean teams and coachs to gather feedback. They are the ones that know the game the best after all.

On July 05 2013 16:33 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Something interesting i've noticed after listening to the Flash interview was that, apparently, Blizzard does not take any feedback from him, maybe not even from his team. Yet Blizzard say they talk to players and "personalities", so, who are they actually talking to? Casters and foreign players?

It would be pathetic if Blizz didn't use the numeros Korean teams and coachs to gather feedback. They are the ones that know the game the best after all.

On July 05 2013 16:38 iky43210 wrote:


from their perspective, but not necessary better for overall health of the game.

As an example, for WoW blizz used to gathered feedback and implemented suggestions from reckful and his crew, because they are the best and most dedicated in their league. Fast forward 3 months, WoW balance was at the worst it has ever been (cataclysm) and they have killed pvp for many.

Let the pro players do their things, and developers design balance based on tangible data and statistics.

On July 05 2013 16:40 Rabiator wrote:

The problem is that ... Are they the most valid to ask though? Because they are pros they can deal with more "spit second stuff" than Joe Bronzeleague. I dont think it is a good idea to balance the game around the very very top and basically tell anyone of roughly Master league "you have to live with losing to somewhat overpowered stuff (for your level of play)".

It is ok to try and make the game good for eSport, BUT that does not exclude balancing it for all levels of play. It isnt a "one or the other" thing ...


Balancing the classes of WoW around PvP was a big reason why I lost interest in the game. It seriously made the classes "samey" because they tried to get rid of any required classes.

The example of why it might be a bad idea to ask competitors for help in balancing a game is good though and quite appropriate, because many players are not that objective and see the game from their own race's eyes only. Awesome examples were given by IdrA's outbursts ... even though I think he can be more objective when he wants to. Balancing takes a lot of thought though and I doubt progamers have the time to do such though experiments.

On July 05 2013 16:40 Rabiator wrote:

The problem is that ... Are they the most valid to ask though? Because they are pros they can deal with more "spit second stuff" than Joe Bronzeleague. I dont think it is a good idea to balance the game around the very very top and basically tell anyone of roughly Master league "you have to live with losing to somewhat overpowered stuff (for your level of play)".

It is ok to try and make the game good for eSport, BUT that does not exclude balancing it for all levels of play. It isnt a "one or the other" thing ...

On July 05 2013 16:48 NarutO wrote:


yes, that is essentially what it is. Balance needs to be achieved at the highest level. Up until a certain point you lose due to your own mistakes and I dare to say that even in a lesser % of games on pro-level , balance is the fault , but thats still the level you need to balance. No one cares about the lower levels. You can give a bronze person the strongest unit and he will still lose.

On July 05 2013 16:48 NarutO wrote:


yes, that is essentially what it is. Balance needs to be achieved at the highest level. Up until a certain point you lose due to your own mistakes and I dare to say that even in a lesser % of games on pro-level , balance is the fault , but thats still the level you need to balance. No one cares about the lower levels. You can give a bronze person the strongest unit and he will still lose.