|
On July 28 2013 22:31 GhostOwl wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 16:27 Sissors wrote:
Not to mention terran doesn't have less players overall than zerg. Actually very slightly more. However strangely all those players of that horribly OP race are in bronze, while the utterly broken zerg race is overrepresented in the higher leagues. But from gold up to GM zerg is better represented than terran. The hell? Why does it matter what race dominates what rank as long as we're not talking about progammer levels? Whatever happens in ladder is not relevant...we're talking progammer levels and even more, we need to look at the top of the progamer in order to balance the game. You DON'T balance the game from bottom up, you do it from top down, it's common sense dude, stop being so defensive with terrible logic.
We have had roughly 50 pages here of zerg complaining widow mines are fine for the top 16 players or so, but for every 'normal' player they were impossible to counter. And now suddenly the zerg are complaining that only the top 16 are relevant? (Roughly, might be top 8).
Tbh they were correct the first time. Of course balance for the top of Code S is important, since it gives us enjoyable games to watch. However if the balance for everyone else is horrible, then it is nice they have good balance in code S, but there is no one to watch them, so also no one will pay them to play.
And quite frankly for me personal, I enjoy watching pro gamers, but my primary entertainment from SC2 is playing it. If balance is so broken it is not fun anymore for me to play, I also won't be watching pro games.
|
On July 29 2013 00:49 willstertben wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 23:57 Big J wrote:On July 28 2013 23:44 willstertben wrote:
without foreign scene there pretty much would be no sc2 as a major esports title.
also that whole thought is based on the belief that terran is harder to play than the other races, which is just false.
you could make an argument that this is true in WOL, but it's simply not the case in hots.
before anyone asks: yes i have played terran quite a bit.
also nobody wants to make it harder, just less effective at some points that are deemed too good. those things, even when there are certain correlations, for the most part are two separate things.
Nope, in a game where the skillcap is unreachable it is exactly the same "how hard" a race is to play and "how strong" a race is. If a thing gets worse and a player can just equalize that by playing better (without actually getting better), he simply didn't use his full potential before the nerf. nope. let me explain the difference: imagine something really hard to execute, but when its done successfully it will win 80% of the time. now imagine something really easy to do, so easy even your grandma could execute it, that will win 40% of the time. the 1st one is imbalanced, but hard to execute. the 2nd one is underpowered, but easy to do. there is a correlation, but ones impact on the other is way lower than the 'value' you changed for it. makes sense?
So what if in this first scenario micro of automaton 2000 is needed to achieve 80% winratio. Is that strategy still imbalanced?
|
On July 29 2013 01:00 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 22:31 GhostOwl wrote:On July 28 2013 16:27 Sissors wrote:
Not to mention terran doesn't have less players overall than zerg. Actually very slightly more. However strangely all those players of that horribly OP race are in bronze, while the utterly broken zerg race is overrepresented in the higher leagues. But from gold up to GM zerg is better represented than terran. The hell? Why does it matter what race dominates what rank as long as we're not talking about progammer levels? Whatever happens in ladder is not relevant...we're talking progammer levels and even more, we need to look at the top of the progamer in order to balance the game. You DON'T balance the game from bottom up, you do it from top down, it's common sense dude, stop being so defensive with terrible logic. We have had roughly 50 pages here of zerg complaining widow mines are fine for the top 16 players or so, but for every 'normal' player they were impossible to counter. And now suddenly the zerg are complaining that only the top 16 are relevant? (Roughly, might be top 8). Tbh they were correct the first time. Of course balance for the top of Code S is important, since it gives us enjoyable games to watch. However if the balance for everyone else is horrible, then it is nice they have good balance in code S, but there is no one to watch them, so also no one will pay them to play. And quite frankly for me personal, I enjoy watching pro gamers, but my primary entertainment from SC2 is playing it. If balance is so broken it is not fun anymore for me to play, I also won't be watching pro games.
by that logic then why not balance around diamond level? or plat? or gold? or silver? or bronze?
.....
|
On July 29 2013 01:10 keglu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 00:49 willstertben wrote:On July 28 2013 23:57 Big J wrote:On July 28 2013 23:44 willstertben wrote:
without foreign scene there pretty much would be no sc2 as a major esports title.
also that whole thought is based on the belief that terran is harder to play than the other races, which is just false.
you could make an argument that this is true in WOL, but it's simply not the case in hots.
before anyone asks: yes i have played terran quite a bit.
also nobody wants to make it harder, just less effective at some points that are deemed too good. those things, even when there are certain correlations, for the most part are two separate things.
Nope, in a game where the skillcap is unreachable it is exactly the same "how hard" a race is to play and "how strong" a race is. If a thing gets worse and a player can just equalize that by playing better (without actually getting better), he simply didn't use his full potential before the nerf. nope. let me explain the difference: imagine something really hard to execute, but when its done successfully it will win 80% of the time. now imagine something really easy to do, so easy even your grandma could execute it, that will win 40% of the time. the 1st one is imbalanced, but hard to execute. the 2nd one is underpowered, but easy to do. there is a correlation, but ones impact on the other is way lower than the 'value' you changed for it. makes sense? So what if in this first scenario micro of automaton 2000 is needed to achieve 80% winratio. Is that strategy still imbalanced?
if you play automaton vs automaton then yes, the strategy would be imbalanced for automatons.
|
On July 29 2013 01:00 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2013 22:31 GhostOwl wrote:On July 28 2013 16:27 Sissors wrote:
Not to mention terran doesn't have less players overall than zerg. Actually very slightly more. However strangely all those players of that horribly OP race are in bronze, while the utterly broken zerg race is overrepresented in the higher leagues. But from gold up to GM zerg is better represented than terran. The hell? Why does it matter what race dominates what rank as long as we're not talking about progammer levels? Whatever happens in ladder is not relevant...we're talking progammer levels and even more, we need to look at the top of the progamer in order to balance the game. You DON'T balance the game from bottom up, you do it from top down, it's common sense dude, stop being so defensive with terrible logic. We have had roughly 50 pages here of zerg complaining widow mines are fine for the top 16 players or so, but for every 'normal' player they were impossible to counter. And now suddenly the zerg are complaining that only the top 16 are relevant? (Roughly, might be top 8). Tbh they were correct the first time. Of course balance for the top of Code S is important, since it gives us enjoyable games to watch. However if the balance for everyone else is horrible, then it is nice they have good balance in code S, but there is no one to watch them, so also no one will pay them to play. And quite frankly for me personal, I enjoy watching pro gamers, but my primary entertainment from SC2 is playing it. If balance is so broken it is not fun anymore for me to play, I also won't be watching pro games.
I'm not Zerg and I wasn't in those discussions. If you're going to quit playing & watching just because the game becomes more balanced, then by all means, feel free to quit. No one is going to miss you.
|
On July 29 2013 02:52 GhostOwl wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 01:00 Sissors wrote:On July 28 2013 22:31 GhostOwl wrote:On July 28 2013 16:27 Sissors wrote:
Not to mention terran doesn't have less players overall than zerg. Actually very slightly more. However strangely all those players of that horribly OP race are in bronze, while the utterly broken zerg race is overrepresented in the higher leagues. But from gold up to GM zerg is better represented than terran. The hell? Why does it matter what race dominates what rank as long as we're not talking about progammer levels? Whatever happens in ladder is not relevant...we're talking progammer levels and even more, we need to look at the top of the progamer in order to balance the game. You DON'T balance the game from bottom up, you do it from top down, it's common sense dude, stop being so defensive with terrible logic. We have had roughly 50 pages here of zerg complaining widow mines are fine for the top 16 players or so, but for every 'normal' player they were impossible to counter. And now suddenly the zerg are complaining that only the top 16 are relevant? (Roughly, might be top 8). Tbh they were correct the first time. Of course balance for the top of Code S is important, since it gives us enjoyable games to watch. However if the balance for everyone else is horrible, then it is nice they have good balance in code S, but there is no one to watch them, so also no one will pay them to play. And quite frankly for me personal, I enjoy watching pro gamers, but my primary entertainment from SC2 is playing it. If balance is so broken it is not fun anymore for me to play, I also won't be watching pro games. I'm not Zerg and I wasn't in those discussions. If you're going to quit playing & watching just because the game becomes more balanced, then by all means, feel free to quit. No one is going to miss you.
And SC is gonna lose even more fans. The thing he's talking about is, game should be balanced at every level possible so diamond scrubs can enjoy playing and watching balanced pro scene.
|
On July 29 2013 02:52 GhostOwl wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 01:00 Sissors wrote:On July 28 2013 22:31 GhostOwl wrote:On July 28 2013 16:27 Sissors wrote:
Not to mention terran doesn't have less players overall than zerg. Actually very slightly more. However strangely all those players of that horribly OP race are in bronze, while the utterly broken zerg race is overrepresented in the higher leagues. But from gold up to GM zerg is better represented than terran. The hell? Why does it matter what race dominates what rank as long as we're not talking about progammer levels? Whatever happens in ladder is not relevant...we're talking progammer levels and even more, we need to look at the top of the progamer in order to balance the game. You DON'T balance the game from bottom up, you do it from top down, it's common sense dude, stop being so defensive with terrible logic. We have had roughly 50 pages here of zerg complaining widow mines are fine for the top 16 players or so, but for every 'normal' player they were impossible to counter. And now suddenly the zerg are complaining that only the top 16 are relevant? (Roughly, might be top 8). Tbh they were correct the first time. Of course balance for the top of Code S is important, since it gives us enjoyable games to watch. However if the balance for everyone else is horrible, then it is nice they have good balance in code S, but there is no one to watch them, so also no one will pay them to play. And quite frankly for me personal, I enjoy watching pro gamers, but my primary entertainment from SC2 is playing it. If balance is so broken it is not fun anymore for me to play, I also won't be watching pro games. I'm not Zerg and I wasn't in those discussions. If you're going to quit playing & watching just because the game becomes more balanced, then by all means, feel free to quit. No one is going to miss you.
The game becomes more "balanced" only because it becomes more coinflippy (which is exactly balanced) by increasing the speed of units and lowering the reaction times allowed to defend against attacks / harrassment. As a consequence the game isnt determined fully by player skill but also by luck ... which should not be the case. How many times are people annoyed about "supposedly better players" being beaten by lesser ones? That is a quite frequent occurrence.
For myself I can only say that the current "path to balance" is rather terrible, because it makes skill far less important and blind luck far too much of a factor. As a simple example you can just look at the Oracle in a PvP for example. If there are still some Stalkers left in the defenders base the harrassment isnt going to go extremely well, but if you are leaving because you are preparing for an attack timing yourself there will be massive damage. So the result is determined by "do I get lucky and he leaves or does he stay put in his base?". That is pure luck, but some people might argue that it is "skill", because it is based on player decisions. It isnt, because your own skill doesnt influence the actions of the opponent ...
SC2 has some giant problems and one of them is that it is fully "attacker focused". This is intentional as you can see from the comments of David Kim in several recent interviews. They think that "buffing harrassment" will give them a more action loaded game, which is true but also stupid, because there is a price to pay for it and that price is a coinflip game due to the extremely low reaction time you have as the defender against many attacks. This has been the case for Marine splitting against Banelings (if you just happen to look elsewhere at the time you fail to split them and lose the game in an instant), badly spreading your forces against Fungals or Forcefields and it continues now with the harrassment methods added in HotS. Sure enough SOME PLAYERS can manage to react quickly enough, but they are the tiny professional minority of players who practice against this every day and the rest of the amateur players get screwed over. Thus the game "gets more balanced" but it is only an illusion of balance and anyone stopping to play because of this is a tragedy and proof of Blizzard going the wrong way.
|
On July 29 2013 03:22 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 02:52 GhostOwl wrote:On July 29 2013 01:00 Sissors wrote:On July 28 2013 22:31 GhostOwl wrote:On July 28 2013 16:27 Sissors wrote:
Not to mention terran doesn't have less players overall than zerg. Actually very slightly more. However strangely all those players of that horribly OP race are in bronze, while the utterly broken zerg race is overrepresented in the higher leagues. But from gold up to GM zerg is better represented than terran. The hell? Why does it matter what race dominates what rank as long as we're not talking about progammer levels? Whatever happens in ladder is not relevant...we're talking progammer levels and even more, we need to look at the top of the progamer in order to balance the game. You DON'T balance the game from bottom up, you do it from top down, it's common sense dude, stop being so defensive with terrible logic. We have had roughly 50 pages here of zerg complaining widow mines are fine for the top 16 players or so, but for every 'normal' player they were impossible to counter. And now suddenly the zerg are complaining that only the top 16 are relevant? (Roughly, might be top 8). Tbh they were correct the first time. Of course balance for the top of Code S is important, since it gives us enjoyable games to watch. However if the balance for everyone else is horrible, then it is nice they have good balance in code S, but there is no one to watch them, so also no one will pay them to play. And quite frankly for me personal, I enjoy watching pro gamers, but my primary entertainment from SC2 is playing it. If balance is so broken it is not fun anymore for me to play, I also won't be watching pro games. I'm not Zerg and I wasn't in those discussions. If you're going to quit playing & watching just because the game becomes more balanced, then by all means, feel free to quit. No one is going to miss you. The game becomes more "balanced" only because it becomes more coinflippy (which is exactly balanced) by increasing the speed of units and lowering the reaction times allowed to defend against attacks / harrassment. As a consequence the game isnt determined fully by player skill but also by luck ... which should not be the case. How many times are people annoyed about "supposedly better players" being beaten by lesser ones? That is a quite frequent occurrence. For myself I can only say that the current "path to balance" is rather terrible, because it makes skill far less important and blind luck far too much of a factor. As a simple example you can just look at the Oracle in a PvP for example. If there are still some Stalkers left in the defenders base the harrassment isnt going to go extremely well, but if you are leaving because you are preparing for an attack timing yourself there will be massive damage. So the result is determined by "do I get lucky and he leaves or does he stay put in his base?". That is pure luck, but some people might argue that it is "skill", because it is based on player decisions. It isnt, because your own skill doesnt influence the actions of the opponent ... SC2 has some giant problems and one of them is that it is fully "attacker focused". This is intentional as you can see from the comments of David Kim in several recent interviews. They think that "buffing harrassment" will give them a more action loaded game, which is true but also stupid, because there is a price to pay for it and that price is a coinflip game due to the extremely low reaction time you have as the defender against many attacks. This has been the case for Marine splitting against Banelings (if you just happen to look elsewhere at the time you fail to split them and lose the game in an instant), badly spreading your forces against Fungals or Forcefields and it continues now with the harrassment methods added in HotS. Sure enough SOME PLAYERS can manage to react quickly enough, but they are the tiny professional minority of players who practice against this every day and the rest of the amateur players get screwed over. Thus the game "gets more balanced" but it is only an illusion of balance and anyone stopping to play because of this is a tragedy and proof of Blizzard going the wrong way.
Blizzard's SC2 philosofy was doomed from the very beginning. It seems they hoped SC2 will be a new generation RTS with a lot of action and less "dull" play, as in bw. But it didn't occur to them that they are taking away the very beauty of strategic game: deep strategic thinking, army positioning and defense utilization. Instead, its a game of "who cranks out more units". DK's interview proves that they still fail to understand it.
|
On July 29 2013 14:03 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 03:22 Rabiator wrote:On July 29 2013 02:52 GhostOwl wrote:On July 29 2013 01:00 Sissors wrote:On July 28 2013 22:31 GhostOwl wrote:On July 28 2013 16:27 Sissors wrote:
Not to mention terran doesn't have less players overall than zerg. Actually very slightly more. However strangely all those players of that horribly OP race are in bronze, while the utterly broken zerg race is overrepresented in the higher leagues. But from gold up to GM zerg is better represented than terran. The hell? Why does it matter what race dominates what rank as long as we're not talking about progammer levels? Whatever happens in ladder is not relevant...we're talking progammer levels and even more, we need to look at the top of the progamer in order to balance the game. You DON'T balance the game from bottom up, you do it from top down, it's common sense dude, stop being so defensive with terrible logic. We have had roughly 50 pages here of zerg complaining widow mines are fine for the top 16 players or so, but for every 'normal' player they were impossible to counter. And now suddenly the zerg are complaining that only the top 16 are relevant? (Roughly, might be top 8). Tbh they were correct the first time. Of course balance for the top of Code S is important, since it gives us enjoyable games to watch. However if the balance for everyone else is horrible, then it is nice they have good balance in code S, but there is no one to watch them, so also no one will pay them to play. And quite frankly for me personal, I enjoy watching pro gamers, but my primary entertainment from SC2 is playing it. If balance is so broken it is not fun anymore for me to play, I also won't be watching pro games. I'm not Zerg and I wasn't in those discussions. If you're going to quit playing & watching just because the game becomes more balanced, then by all means, feel free to quit. No one is going to miss you. The game becomes more "balanced" only because it becomes more coinflippy (which is exactly balanced) by increasing the speed of units and lowering the reaction times allowed to defend against attacks / harrassment. As a consequence the game isnt determined fully by player skill but also by luck ... which should not be the case. How many times are people annoyed about "supposedly better players" being beaten by lesser ones? That is a quite frequent occurrence. For myself I can only say that the current "path to balance" is rather terrible, because it makes skill far less important and blind luck far too much of a factor. As a simple example you can just look at the Oracle in a PvP for example. If there are still some Stalkers left in the defenders base the harrassment isnt going to go extremely well, but if you are leaving because you are preparing for an attack timing yourself there will be massive damage. So the result is determined by "do I get lucky and he leaves or does he stay put in his base?". That is pure luck, but some people might argue that it is "skill", because it is based on player decisions. It isnt, because your own skill doesnt influence the actions of the opponent ... SC2 has some giant problems and one of them is that it is fully "attacker focused". This is intentional as you can see from the comments of David Kim in several recent interviews. They think that "buffing harrassment" will give them a more action loaded game, which is true but also stupid, because there is a price to pay for it and that price is a coinflip game due to the extremely low reaction time you have as the defender against many attacks. This has been the case for Marine splitting against Banelings (if you just happen to look elsewhere at the time you fail to split them and lose the game in an instant), badly spreading your forces against Fungals or Forcefields and it continues now with the harrassment methods added in HotS. Sure enough SOME PLAYERS can manage to react quickly enough, but they are the tiny professional minority of players who practice against this every day and the rest of the amateur players get screwed over. Thus the game "gets more balanced" but it is only an illusion of balance and anyone stopping to play because of this is a tragedy and proof of Blizzard going the wrong way. Blizzard's SC2 philosofy was doomed from the very beginning. It seems they hoped SC2 will be a new generation RTS with a lot of action and less "dull" play, as in bw. But it didn't occur to them that they are taking away the very beauty of strategic game: deep strategic thinking, army positioning and defense utilization. Instead, its a game of "who cranks out more units". DK's interview proves that they still fail to understand it.
I dont think their design philosophy was doomed from the start, BUT ... "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" ... and their good intentions was to remove the supposedly bad parts of BW:
- clunky 8-directional and "bump into each other" movement
- seemingly restrictive 12 unit selection limit
- 1 building selection limit
- nonexistent autocast.
The bad part is that they went far far far too much into the other direction of "easy to play" and turned the "strategy game" - where you have a few seconds to react to threats due to the limited concentration of firepower - into an "action game" with required reaction times of less than a second. They didnt realize that "fighting the UI" was a necessary part of game balance, because the 12-unit-selection limit and the spread out movement kept the unit density low enough to allow everyone the time to react and micro their units in a battle. Sure enough split-second reactions are possible, but only if you are a trained professional or otherwise spend hours every day on practicing them.
The arrogant part of Blizzard is that they didnt acknowledge that their decisions led to a huge mistake and didnt understand criticism leveled against their general mechanics (which they seem to be totally unwilling to change). The answer from DB or DK to the "Dynamic unit movement" thread, suggestion and test map clearly showed that they didnt understand the reasoning behind that attempted change.
The most obvious arrogant part of Blizzard right now is their "hatred" of the slow and planned terran mech style and it clearly shows that they think they know best how we *should* play the game. In short: they want to decide for us and that is not a good thing. The lack of "end game units" which you could throw at each other in a fair fight is pretty apparent too, because in a TvZ only bio seems to be a reasonable way to play while Zerg can use Broodlords and Ultralisks and the Terran Battlecruisers remain a joke (and have been made even more useless with Abduct in HotS).
|
On July 29 2013 14:51 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 14:03 saddaromma wrote:On July 29 2013 03:22 Rabiator wrote:On July 29 2013 02:52 GhostOwl wrote:On July 29 2013 01:00 Sissors wrote:On July 28 2013 22:31 GhostOwl wrote:On July 28 2013 16:27 Sissors wrote:
Not to mention terran doesn't have less players overall than zerg. Actually very slightly more. However strangely all those players of that horribly OP race are in bronze, while the utterly broken zerg race is overrepresented in the higher leagues. But from gold up to GM zerg is better represented than terran. The hell? Why does it matter what race dominates what rank as long as we're not talking about progammer levels? Whatever happens in ladder is not relevant...we're talking progammer levels and even more, we need to look at the top of the progamer in order to balance the game. You DON'T balance the game from bottom up, you do it from top down, it's common sense dude, stop being so defensive with terrible logic. We have had roughly 50 pages here of zerg complaining widow mines are fine for the top 16 players or so, but for every 'normal' player they were impossible to counter. And now suddenly the zerg are complaining that only the top 16 are relevant? (Roughly, might be top 8). Tbh they were correct the first time. Of course balance for the top of Code S is important, since it gives us enjoyable games to watch. However if the balance for everyone else is horrible, then it is nice they have good balance in code S, but there is no one to watch them, so also no one will pay them to play. And quite frankly for me personal, I enjoy watching pro gamers, but my primary entertainment from SC2 is playing it. If balance is so broken it is not fun anymore for me to play, I also won't be watching pro games. I'm not Zerg and I wasn't in those discussions. If you're going to quit playing & watching just because the game becomes more balanced, then by all means, feel free to quit. No one is going to miss you. The game becomes more "balanced" only because it becomes more coinflippy (which is exactly balanced) by increasing the speed of units and lowering the reaction times allowed to defend against attacks / harrassment. As a consequence the game isnt determined fully by player skill but also by luck ... which should not be the case. How many times are people annoyed about "supposedly better players" being beaten by lesser ones? That is a quite frequent occurrence. For myself I can only say that the current "path to balance" is rather terrible, because it makes skill far less important and blind luck far too much of a factor. As a simple example you can just look at the Oracle in a PvP for example. If there are still some Stalkers left in the defenders base the harrassment isnt going to go extremely well, but if you are leaving because you are preparing for an attack timing yourself there will be massive damage. So the result is determined by "do I get lucky and he leaves or does he stay put in his base?". That is pure luck, but some people might argue that it is "skill", because it is based on player decisions. It isnt, because your own skill doesnt influence the actions of the opponent ... SC2 has some giant problems and one of them is that it is fully "attacker focused". This is intentional as you can see from the comments of David Kim in several recent interviews. They think that "buffing harrassment" will give them a more action loaded game, which is true but also stupid, because there is a price to pay for it and that price is a coinflip game due to the extremely low reaction time you have as the defender against many attacks. This has been the case for Marine splitting against Banelings (if you just happen to look elsewhere at the time you fail to split them and lose the game in an instant), badly spreading your forces against Fungals or Forcefields and it continues now with the harrassment methods added in HotS. Sure enough SOME PLAYERS can manage to react quickly enough, but they are the tiny professional minority of players who practice against this every day and the rest of the amateur players get screwed over. Thus the game "gets more balanced" but it is only an illusion of balance and anyone stopping to play because of this is a tragedy and proof of Blizzard going the wrong way. Blizzard's SC2 philosofy was doomed from the very beginning. It seems they hoped SC2 will be a new generation RTS with a lot of action and less "dull" play, as in bw. But it didn't occur to them that they are taking away the very beauty of strategic game: deep strategic thinking, army positioning and defense utilization. Instead, its a game of "who cranks out more units". DK's interview proves that they still fail to understand it. The most obvious arrogant part of Blizzard right now is their "hatred" of the slow and planned terran mech style and it clearly shows that they think they know best how we *should* play the game. In short: they want to decide for us and that is not a good thing. The lack of "end game units" which you could throw at each other in a fair fight is pretty apparent too, because in a TvZ only bio seems to be a reasonable way to play while Zerg can use Broodlords and Ultralisks and the Terran Battlecruisers remain a joke (and have been made even more useless with Abduct in HotS).
Agreed. The only question, what we can do to help this situation?
|
Russian Federation125 Posts
On July 29 2013 14:51 Rabiator wrote:
The bad part is that they went far far far too much into the other direction of "easy to play" and turned the "strategy game" - where you have a few seconds to react to threats due to the limited concentration of firepower - into an "action game" with required reaction times of less than a second.
In fact it can be fixed rather easy by changing game speed from very fast to fast.
And as for balance for progamers vs balance for casual you forget several important differences.
1) different map pool for ladder and tournaments. Regarding ladder bliz want various games - like 1 map ig good for macro other is good for 1-2base pushes, and bliz is completly ok if on 1 map z will have 60% win rate in zvt for example.
Such attitude leads to imba zerg on this map and blizz ok with that. On tournaments players often can skip bad mapes.
Thay also told several time that they ok if player have to play in slight disadvantage on some maps or timings.
2) Ladder is bo1. Serious Tournaments is ro3+ and it affect strategy choice very much + you can watch replay and find weak points in opponent build. For example if zerg plays +2hatch before pool on ladder and you didn't scout it - then zerg will roll over you and you will think that is imba, on tournament you will have chance to fix this error next game. All this trick affect winrates for races.
3) On tournaments players usually know each other so there is mind games which also affect balace and race winrate.
So for example if there is imba strat and you know that he is using it you can blindly do counterbuild for it and win.
On ladder you can't do so and will lose most likely because hes start is imba.
Well my point is
* Blizzard ok with imbalance on ladder(like 40%-60% winrates), because it leads to more variety in games. Like if you think that your race is weak on this map - then cheese or allin.
And they know that their maps have balance problems.
* Progamers have lots of options to find work around for balance problems - they can skip maps and prepare counterbuild for opponents.
That is why i think that blizz should balance by gml ladder for example, not by tournaments.
For example now we know that toss won very few tournaments and many think that toss should be buffed because of this.
But look at gml ladder - 40% toss 27% terr 33%zerg. Toss definetely isn't the weakest race.
|
On July 29 2013 03:01 Thruth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 02:52 GhostOwl wrote:On July 29 2013 01:00 Sissors wrote:On July 28 2013 22:31 GhostOwl wrote:On July 28 2013 16:27 Sissors wrote:
Not to mention terran doesn't have less players overall than zerg. Actually very slightly more. However strangely all those players of that horribly OP race are in bronze, while the utterly broken zerg race is overrepresented in the higher leagues. But from gold up to GM zerg is better represented than terran. The hell? Why does it matter what race dominates what rank as long as we're not talking about progammer levels? Whatever happens in ladder is not relevant...we're talking progammer levels and even more, we need to look at the top of the progamer in order to balance the game. You DON'T balance the game from bottom up, you do it from top down, it's common sense dude, stop being so defensive with terrible logic. We have had roughly 50 pages here of zerg complaining widow mines are fine for the top 16 players or so, but for every 'normal' player they were impossible to counter. And now suddenly the zerg are complaining that only the top 16 are relevant? (Roughly, might be top 8). Tbh they were correct the first time. Of course balance for the top of Code S is important, since it gives us enjoyable games to watch. However if the balance for everyone else is horrible, then it is nice they have good balance in code S, but there is no one to watch them, so also no one will pay them to play. And quite frankly for me personal, I enjoy watching pro gamers, but my primary entertainment from SC2 is playing it. If balance is so broken it is not fun anymore for me to play, I also won't be watching pro games. I'm not Zerg and I wasn't in those discussions. If you're going to quit playing & watching just because the game becomes more balanced, then by all means, feel free to quit. No one is going to miss you. And SC is gonna lose even more fans. The thing he's talking about is, game should be balanced at every level possible so diamond scrubs can enjoy playing and watching balanced pro scene.
No, it is impossible to make it balanced for every level, but it is possible to make it fun for every level, and that will keep the players playing the game. Currently it really isn't fun playing against Terran on lower level(at least mine, Diamond - Master level) and that is the problem.
We aren't pro players, there will always be imbalanced stuff because we don't have enough skill to counter it, but if it is still fun to me, I don't really mind it, you win some, you lose some, as long as I am entertained, it is good.
|
On July 29 2013 16:29 Ramiz1989 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 03:01 Thruth wrote:On July 29 2013 02:52 GhostOwl wrote:On July 29 2013 01:00 Sissors wrote:On July 28 2013 22:31 GhostOwl wrote:On July 28 2013 16:27 Sissors wrote:
Not to mention terran doesn't have less players overall than zerg. Actually very slightly more. However strangely all those players of that horribly OP race are in bronze, while the utterly broken zerg race is overrepresented in the higher leagues. But from gold up to GM zerg is better represented than terran. The hell? Why does it matter what race dominates what rank as long as we're not talking about progammer levels? Whatever happens in ladder is not relevant...we're talking progammer levels and even more, we need to look at the top of the progamer in order to balance the game. You DON'T balance the game from bottom up, you do it from top down, it's common sense dude, stop being so defensive with terrible logic. We have had roughly 50 pages here of zerg complaining widow mines are fine for the top 16 players or so, but for every 'normal' player they were impossible to counter. And now suddenly the zerg are complaining that only the top 16 are relevant? (Roughly, might be top 8). Tbh they were correct the first time. Of course balance for the top of Code S is important, since it gives us enjoyable games to watch. However if the balance for everyone else is horrible, then it is nice they have good balance in code S, but there is no one to watch them, so also no one will pay them to play. And quite frankly for me personal, I enjoy watching pro gamers, but my primary entertainment from SC2 is playing it. If balance is so broken it is not fun anymore for me to play, I also won't be watching pro games. I'm not Zerg and I wasn't in those discussions. If you're going to quit playing & watching just because the game becomes more balanced, then by all means, feel free to quit. No one is going to miss you. And SC is gonna lose even more fans. The thing he's talking about is, game should be balanced at every level possible so diamond scrubs can enjoy playing and watching balanced pro scene. No, it is impossible to make it balanced for every level, but it is possible to make it fun for every level, and that will keep the players playing the game. Currently it really isn't fun playing against Terran on lower level(at least mine, Diamond - Master level) and that is the problem. We aren't pro players, there will always be imbalanced stuff because we don't have enough skill to counter it, but if it is still fun to me, I don't really mind it, you win some, you lose some, as long as I am entertained, it is good.
If its balanced for the very best players its balanced for everyone, its just that low-level players do more mistakes and lose due to them. Also about fun, to me TvP is no fun at all and I believe the match up is currently in favor of Protoss as the MSc allows for too much aggressive potential while being a very good defensive option as well. It allows greed for Protoss and would allow punishment for Terran that try to match that greed. Yet we have players like INnoVation that keep winning in impressive ways. Why? Because Terran scales a lot with mechanics. Players like INnoVation and Flash who are basically mechanically flawless can hit and create timings we can't. So everyone has to first find the definition of balance. Does it mean your race has the potential to win? Or does it mean it should be equal effort put into the game by both players to gain victory.
While I believe the potential is there, I believe the effort of winning as Terran in Terran vs Protoss is strongly outweighting the effort of Protoss.
|
I don't like the emphasis on cloaked, burrowed, or invisible units makes the game more like rock paper scissors which is a game of luck. What do you guys think?
|
On July 29 2013 16:29 Ramiz1989 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 03:01 Thruth wrote:On July 29 2013 02:52 GhostOwl wrote:On July 29 2013 01:00 Sissors wrote:On July 28 2013 22:31 GhostOwl wrote:On July 28 2013 16:27 Sissors wrote:
Not to mention terran doesn't have less players overall than zerg. Actually very slightly more. However strangely all those players of that horribly OP race are in bronze, while the utterly broken zerg race is overrepresented in the higher leagues. But from gold up to GM zerg is better represented than terran. The hell? Why does it matter what race dominates what rank as long as we're not talking about progammer levels? Whatever happens in ladder is not relevant...we're talking progammer levels and even more, we need to look at the top of the progamer in order to balance the game. You DON'T balance the game from bottom up, you do it from top down, it's common sense dude, stop being so defensive with terrible logic. We have had roughly 50 pages here of zerg complaining widow mines are fine for the top 16 players or so, but for every 'normal' player they were impossible to counter. And now suddenly the zerg are complaining that only the top 16 are relevant? (Roughly, might be top 8). Tbh they were correct the first time. Of course balance for the top of Code S is important, since it gives us enjoyable games to watch. However if the balance for everyone else is horrible, then it is nice they have good balance in code S, but there is no one to watch them, so also no one will pay them to play. And quite frankly for me personal, I enjoy watching pro gamers, but my primary entertainment from SC2 is playing it. If balance is so broken it is not fun anymore for me to play, I also won't be watching pro games. I'm not Zerg and I wasn't in those discussions. If you're going to quit playing & watching just because the game becomes more balanced, then by all means, feel free to quit. No one is going to miss you. And SC is gonna lose even more fans. The thing he's talking about is, game should be balanced at every level possible so diamond scrubs can enjoy playing and watching balanced pro scene. No, it is impossible to make it balanced for every level, but it is possible to make it fun for every level, and that will keep the players playing the game. Currently it really isn't fun playing against Terran on lower level(at least mine, Diamond - Master level) and that is the problem. We aren't pro players, there will always be imbalanced stuff because we don't have enough skill to counter it, but if it is still fun to me, I don't really mind it, you win some, you lose some, as long as I am entertained, it is good.
Hm, I just wanted to tell you something along the lines of "you are diamond-master, you don't play just to fool around anymore at this point. You would not have reached that point if you just played for fun".
But then I thought that in core you are right. It's - though probably not really boring - by far not as fun as it could be to play certain matchups right now. Simply because everything is just the execution of 1macro gameplan or a cheese in those.
Like, the matchup i like the most to play right now is PvZ. Sure your openings are for the most part 3hatches against FFE or 2hatch into third against gateway expands. But there is a huge variety of stuff where you can switch it up and outplay your opponent strategically for both sides. Simply because there is a lot of branches in standard macroplay that you can while in many other matchups (especially TvP or TvZ; to a lesser extend PvP and ZvZ) everything is very predestined.
|
On July 29 2013 16:44 reps)squishy wrote:
I don't like the emphasis on cloaked, burrowed, or invisible units makes the game more like rock paper scissors which is a game of luck. What do you guys think?
they get easier to deal with the more experience you get against them. But yeah, I'm not too big of a fan of cloaked attacking/casting units either. At least not for as long as you can kill detectors and for as long as there are so little detectors. As you say, it's a bit coinflippy at times, because detection is so rare and therefore cloaked units are so easy to deal with after being spotted..
|
On July 29 2013 16:29 Ramiz1989 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 03:01 Thruth wrote:On July 29 2013 02:52 GhostOwl wrote:On July 29 2013 01:00 Sissors wrote:On July 28 2013 22:31 GhostOwl wrote:On July 28 2013 16:27 Sissors wrote:
Not to mention terran doesn't have less players overall than zerg. Actually very slightly more. However strangely all those players of that horribly OP race are in bronze, while the utterly broken zerg race is overrepresented in the higher leagues. But from gold up to GM zerg is better represented than terran. The hell? Why does it matter what race dominates what rank as long as we're not talking about progammer levels? Whatever happens in ladder is not relevant...we're talking progammer levels and even more, we need to look at the top of the progamer in order to balance the game. You DON'T balance the game from bottom up, you do it from top down, it's common sense dude, stop being so defensive with terrible logic. We have had roughly 50 pages here of zerg complaining widow mines are fine for the top 16 players or so, but for every 'normal' player they were impossible to counter. And now suddenly the zerg are complaining that only the top 16 are relevant? (Roughly, might be top 8). Tbh they were correct the first time. Of course balance for the top of Code S is important, since it gives us enjoyable games to watch. However if the balance for everyone else is horrible, then it is nice they have good balance in code S, but there is no one to watch them, so also no one will pay them to play. And quite frankly for me personal, I enjoy watching pro gamers, but my primary entertainment from SC2 is playing it. If balance is so broken it is not fun anymore for me to play, I also won't be watching pro games. I'm not Zerg and I wasn't in those discussions. If you're going to quit playing & watching just because the game becomes more balanced, then by all means, feel free to quit. No one is going to miss you. And SC is gonna lose even more fans. The thing he's talking about is, game should be balanced at every level possible so diamond scrubs can enjoy playing and watching balanced pro scene. No, it is impossible to make it balanced for every level, but it is possible to make it fun for every level, and that will keep the players playing the game. Currently it really isn't fun playing against Terran on lower level(at least mine, Diamond - Master level) and that is the problem. We aren't pro players, there will always be imbalanced stuff because we don't have enough skill to counter it, but if it is still fun to me, I don't really mind it, you win some, you lose some, as long as I am entertained, it is good.
Fun however is closely related to balance. I agree that fun is more important for the ladder, and a bit of imbalance won't directly ruin the fun. But serious imbalance will.
On July 29 2013 16:36 NarutO wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 16:29 Ramiz1989 wrote:On July 29 2013 03:01 Thruth wrote:On July 29 2013 02:52 GhostOwl wrote:On July 29 2013 01:00 Sissors wrote:On July 28 2013 22:31 GhostOwl wrote:On July 28 2013 16:27 Sissors wrote:
Not to mention terran doesn't have less players overall than zerg. Actually very slightly more. However strangely all those players of that horribly OP race are in bronze, while the utterly broken zerg race is overrepresented in the higher leagues. But from gold up to GM zerg is better represented than terran. The hell? Why does it matter what race dominates what rank as long as we're not talking about progammer levels? Whatever happens in ladder is not relevant...we're talking progammer levels and even more, we need to look at the top of the progamer in order to balance the game. You DON'T balance the game from bottom up, you do it from top down, it's common sense dude, stop being so defensive with terrible logic. We have had roughly 50 pages here of zerg complaining widow mines are fine for the top 16 players or so, but for every 'normal' player they were impossible to counter. And now suddenly the zerg are complaining that only the top 16 are relevant? (Roughly, might be top 8). Tbh they were correct the first time. Of course balance for the top of Code S is important, since it gives us enjoyable games to watch. However if the balance for everyone else is horrible, then it is nice they have good balance in code S, but there is no one to watch them, so also no one will pay them to play. And quite frankly for me personal, I enjoy watching pro gamers, but my primary entertainment from SC2 is playing it. If balance is so broken it is not fun anymore for me to play, I also won't be watching pro games. I'm not Zerg and I wasn't in those discussions. If you're going to quit playing & watching just because the game becomes more balanced, then by all means, feel free to quit. No one is going to miss you. And SC is gonna lose even more fans. The thing he's talking about is, game should be balanced at every level possible so diamond scrubs can enjoy playing and watching balanced pro scene. No, it is impossible to make it balanced for every level, but it is possible to make it fun for every level, and that will keep the players playing the game. Currently it really isn't fun playing against Terran on lower level(at least mine, Diamond - Master level) and that is the problem. We aren't pro players, there will always be imbalanced stuff because we don't have enough skill to counter it, but if it is still fun to me, I don't really mind it, you win some, you lose some, as long as I am entertained, it is good. If its balanced for the very best players its balanced for everyone, its just that low-level players do more mistakes and lose due to them.
Why would it be balanced then for everyone? You can make a fairly simple definition of balance: people of equal skill playing different races should have equal chance of winning, regardless of their equal skill level. Balance can be different on different skill levels, there can also be changes that specifically direct either lower or higher skill levels. Lets say as stupid example, we prevent warp prism from picking up immortals. Has pretty close to zero influence on lower skill levels (lets say plat and lower). While at top levels it will have a very significant influence on PvZ.
There are limits, you cannot really balance the game for those who completely lack the basics. But keeping it balanced across different skill levels is someone blizzard really should pay attention to (and I think they are doing a quite good job at it), if they want SC2 to be popular outside a small group of hardcore players.
Now I know you will say everyone who isn't innovation should just become better. But then I can also nerf zerg quite a bit and tell Hyun he should look at Automaton 2000 micro bot for some pointers how he should use his zerglings. Is that not realistic? Well telling a gold player he should just look at Hyun how he should play and suck it up is also not realistic.
Hm, I just wanted to tell you something along the lines of "you are diamond-master, you don't play just to fool around anymore at this point. You would not have reached that point if you just played for fun".
I am also that level, and I most definately play just for fun. For example I never watch my replays to find out what I do wrong, in principle don't go searching around for BO's to follow*, I just like to play. (* Sometimes I do it when one of my matchups really suck, then it takes the fun out of it knowing I will lose anyway without a chance on winning).
|
On July 29 2013 17:01 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 16:29 Ramiz1989 wrote:On July 29 2013 03:01 Thruth wrote:On July 29 2013 02:52 GhostOwl wrote:On July 29 2013 01:00 Sissors wrote:On July 28 2013 22:31 GhostOwl wrote:On July 28 2013 16:27 Sissors wrote:
Not to mention terran doesn't have less players overall than zerg. Actually very slightly more. However strangely all those players of that horribly OP race are in bronze, while the utterly broken zerg race is overrepresented in the higher leagues. But from gold up to GM zerg is better represented than terran. The hell? Why does it matter what race dominates what rank as long as we're not talking about progammer levels? Whatever happens in ladder is not relevant...we're talking progammer levels and even more, we need to look at the top of the progamer in order to balance the game. You DON'T balance the game from bottom up, you do it from top down, it's common sense dude, stop being so defensive with terrible logic. We have had roughly 50 pages here of zerg complaining widow mines are fine for the top 16 players or so, but for every 'normal' player they were impossible to counter. And now suddenly the zerg are complaining that only the top 16 are relevant? (Roughly, might be top 8). Tbh they were correct the first time. Of course balance for the top of Code S is important, since it gives us enjoyable games to watch. However if the balance for everyone else is horrible, then it is nice they have good balance in code S, but there is no one to watch them, so also no one will pay them to play. And quite frankly for me personal, I enjoy watching pro gamers, but my primary entertainment from SC2 is playing it. If balance is so broken it is not fun anymore for me to play, I also won't be watching pro games. I'm not Zerg and I wasn't in those discussions. If you're going to quit playing & watching just because the game becomes more balanced, then by all means, feel free to quit. No one is going to miss you. And SC is gonna lose even more fans. The thing he's talking about is, game should be balanced at every level possible so diamond scrubs can enjoy playing and watching balanced pro scene. No, it is impossible to make it balanced for every level, but it is possible to make it fun for every level, and that will keep the players playing the game. Currently it really isn't fun playing against Terran on lower level(at least mine, Diamond - Master level) and that is the problem. We aren't pro players, there will always be imbalanced stuff because we don't have enough skill to counter it, but if it is still fun to me, I don't really mind it, you win some, you lose some, as long as I am entertained, it is good. Fun however is closely related to balance. I agree that fun is more important for the ladder, and a bit of imbalance won't directly ruin the fun. But serious imbalance will. Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 16:36 NarutO wrote:On July 29 2013 16:29 Ramiz1989 wrote:On July 29 2013 03:01 Thruth wrote:On July 29 2013 02:52 GhostOwl wrote:On July 29 2013 01:00 Sissors wrote:On July 28 2013 22:31 GhostOwl wrote:On July 28 2013 16:27 Sissors wrote:
Not to mention terran doesn't have less players overall than zerg. Actually very slightly more. However strangely all those players of that horribly OP race are in bronze, while the utterly broken zerg race is overrepresented in the higher leagues. But from gold up to GM zerg is better represented than terran. The hell? Why does it matter what race dominates what rank as long as we're not talking about progammer levels? Whatever happens in ladder is not relevant...we're talking progammer levels and even more, we need to look at the top of the progamer in order to balance the game. You DON'T balance the game from bottom up, you do it from top down, it's common sense dude, stop being so defensive with terrible logic. We have had roughly 50 pages here of zerg complaining widow mines are fine for the top 16 players or so, but for every 'normal' player they were impossible to counter. And now suddenly the zerg are complaining that only the top 16 are relevant? (Roughly, might be top 8). Tbh they were correct the first time. Of course balance for the top of Code S is important, since it gives us enjoyable games to watch. However if the balance for everyone else is horrible, then it is nice they have good balance in code S, but there is no one to watch them, so also no one will pay them to play. And quite frankly for me personal, I enjoy watching pro gamers, but my primary entertainment from SC2 is playing it. If balance is so broken it is not fun anymore for me to play, I also won't be watching pro games. I'm not Zerg and I wasn't in those discussions. If you're going to quit playing & watching just because the game becomes more balanced, then by all means, feel free to quit. No one is going to miss you. And SC is gonna lose even more fans. The thing he's talking about is, game should be balanced at every level possible so diamond scrubs can enjoy playing and watching balanced pro scene. No, it is impossible to make it balanced for every level, but it is possible to make it fun for every level, and that will keep the players playing the game. Currently it really isn't fun playing against Terran on lower level(at least mine, Diamond - Master level) and that is the problem. We aren't pro players, there will always be imbalanced stuff because we don't have enough skill to counter it, but if it is still fun to me, I don't really mind it, you win some, you lose some, as long as I am entertained, it is good. If its balanced for the very best players its balanced for everyone, its just that low-level players do more mistakes and lose due to them. Why would it be balanced then for everyone? You can make a fairly simple definition of balance: people of equal skill playing different races should have equal chance of winning, regardless of their equal skill level. Balance can be different on different skill levels, there can also be changes that specifically direct either lower or higher skill levels. Lets say as stupid example, we prevent warp prism from picking up immortals. Has pretty close to zero influence on lower skill levels (lets say plat and lower). While at top levels it will have a very significant influence on PvZ. There are limits, you cannot really balance the game for those who completely lack the basics. But keeping it balanced across different skill levels is someone blizzard really should pay attention to (and I think they are doing a quite good job at it), if they want SC2 to be popular outside a small group of hardcore players. Now I know you will say everyone who isn't innovation should just become better. But then I can also nerf zerg quite a bit and tell Hyun he should look at Automaton 2000 micro bot for some pointers how he should use his zerglings. Is that not realistic? Well telling a gold player he should just look at Hyun how he should play and suck it up is also not realistic. Show nested quote +Hm, I just wanted to tell you something along the lines of "you are diamond-master, you don't play just to fool around anymore at this point. You would not have reached that point if you just played for fun". I am also that level, and I most definately play just for fun. For example I never watch my replays to find out what I do wrong, in principle don't go searching around for BO's to follow*, I just like to play. (* Sometimes I do it when one of my matchups really suck, then it takes the fun out of it knowing I will lose anyway without a chance on winning).
As I pointed out, there's more than one definition of balance and you picked yours. To me there's two options;
-> All races got the potential to play on equal level and win/lose regardless of the map or player.
or he other one would be
-> Players of equal skill need equal effort to win
While I can understand your point I simpl disagree that this is the only valid definition of balance.
|
Why would it be balanced then for everyone? You can make a fairly simple definition of balance: people of equal skill playing different races should have equal chance of winning, regardless of their equal skill level. Balance can be different on different skill levels, there can also be changes that specifically direct either lower or higher skill levels. Lets say as stupid example, we prevent warp prism from picking up immortals. Has pretty close to zero influence on lower skill levels (lets say plat and lower). While at top levels it will have a very significant influence on PvZ.
Well, but what you describe is like a mathematical theory on existence on something, which you can prove and it's great and everything. However, in reality you deal with the problem of finding the the thing and testing the premises.
And that's where you simply have a problem: how do you determine equal skill?
I like blizzard's approach with matching players with similar rating, because it is like quantum theory: we can never find out who has more skill, but, therefore, noone can ever disprove that MMR describes a players skill. Hence, defining that MMR=skill and then matching players with similar MMR will achieve exactly what you write. People of similar MMR play each other and, because MMR=skill have balanced winrates at all levels under the top. All that is left is to balance for the prolevel and create a good MMR.
|
On July 29 2013 17:14 NarutO wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2013 17:01 Sissors wrote:On July 29 2013 16:29 Ramiz1989 wrote:On July 29 2013 03:01 Thruth wrote:On July 29 2013 02:52 GhostOwl wrote:On July 29 2013 01:00 Sissors wrote:On July 28 2013 22:31 GhostOwl wrote:On July 28 2013 16:27 Sissors wrote:
Not to mention terran doesn't have less players overall than zerg. Actually very slightly more. However strangely all those players of that horribly OP race are in bronze, while the utterly broken zerg race is overrepresented in the higher leagues. But from gold up to GM zerg is better represented than terran. The hell? Why does it matter what race dominates what rank as long as we're not talking about progammer levels? Whatever happens in ladder is not relevant...we're talking progammer levels and even more, we need to look at the top of the progamer in order to balance the game. You DON'T balance the game from bottom up, you do it from top down, it's common sense dude, stop being so defensive with terrible logic. We have had roughly 50 pages here of zerg complaining widow mines are fine for the top 16 players or so, but for every 'normal' player they were impossible to counter. And now suddenly the zerg are complaining that only the top 16 are relevant? (Roughly, might be top 8). Tbh they were correct the first time. Of course balance for the top of Code S is important, since it gives us enjoyable games to watch. However if the balance for everyone else is horrible, then it is nice they have good balance in code S, but there is no one to watch them, so also no one will pay them to play. And quite frankly for me personal, I enjoy watching pro gamers, but my primary entertainment from SC2 is playing it. If balance is so broken it is not fun anymore for me to play, I also won't be watching pro games. I'm not Zerg and I wasn't in those discussions. If you're going to quit playing & watching just because the game becomes more balanced, then by all means, feel free to quit. No one is going to miss you. And SC is gonna lose even more fans. The thing he's talking about is, game should be balanced at every level possible so diamond scrubs can enjoy playing and watching balanced pro scene. No, it is impossible to make it balanced for every level, but it is possible to make it fun for every level, and that will keep the players playing the game. Currently it really isn't fun playing against Terran on lower level(at least mine, Diamond - Master level) and that is the problem. We aren't pro players, there will always be imbalanced stuff because we don't have enough skill to counter it, but if it is still fun to me, I don't really mind it, you win some, you lose some, as long as I am entertained, it is good. Fun however is closely related to balance. I agree that fun is more important for the ladder, and a bit of imbalance won't directly ruin the fun. But serious imbalance will. On July 29 2013 16:36 NarutO wrote:On July 29 2013 16:29 Ramiz1989 wrote:On July 29 2013 03:01 Thruth wrote:On July 29 2013 02:52 GhostOwl wrote:On July 29 2013 01:00 Sissors wrote:On July 28 2013 22:31 GhostOwl wrote:On July 28 2013 16:27 Sissors wrote:
Not to mention terran doesn't have less players overall than zerg. Actually very slightly more. However strangely all those players of that horribly OP race are in bronze, while the utterly broken zerg race is overrepresented in the higher leagues. But from gold up to GM zerg is better represented than terran. The hell? Why does it matter what race dominates what rank as long as we're not talking about progammer levels? Whatever happens in ladder is not relevant...we're talking progammer levels and even more, we need to look at the top of the progamer in order to balance the game. You DON'T balance the game from bottom up, you do it from top down, it's common sense dude, stop being so defensive with terrible logic. We have had roughly 50 pages here of zerg complaining widow mines are fine for the top 16 players or so, but for every 'normal' player they were impossible to counter. And now suddenly the zerg are complaining that only the top 16 are relevant? (Roughly, might be top 8). Tbh they were correct the first time. Of course balance for the top of Code S is important, since it gives us enjoyable games to watch. However if the balance for everyone else is horrible, then it is nice they have good balance in code S, but there is no one to watch them, so also no one will pay them to play. And quite frankly for me personal, I enjoy watching pro gamers, but my primary entertainment from SC2 is playing it. If balance is so broken it is not fun anymore for me to play, I also won't be watching pro games. I'm not Zerg and I wasn't in those discussions. If you're going to quit playing & watching just because the game becomes more balanced, then by all means, feel free to quit. No one is going to miss you. And SC is gonna lose even more fans. The thing he's talking about is, game should be balanced at every level possible so diamond scrubs can enjoy playing and watching balanced pro scene. No, it is impossible to make it balanced for every level, but it is possible to make it fun for every level, and that will keep the players playing the game. Currently it really isn't fun playing against Terran on lower level(at least mine, Diamond - Master level) and that is the problem. We aren't pro players, there will always be imbalanced stuff because we don't have enough skill to counter it, but if it is still fun to me, I don't really mind it, you win some, you lose some, as long as I am entertained, it is good. If its balanced for the very best players its balanced for everyone, its just that low-level players do more mistakes and lose due to them. Why would it be balanced then for everyone? You can make a fairly simple definition of balance: people of equal skill playing different races should have equal chance of winning, regardless of their equal skill level. Balance can be different on different skill levels, there can also be changes that specifically direct either lower or higher skill levels. Lets say as stupid example, we prevent warp prism from picking up immortals. Has pretty close to zero influence on lower skill levels (lets say plat and lower). While at top levels it will have a very significant influence on PvZ. There are limits, you cannot really balance the game for those who completely lack the basics. But keeping it balanced across different skill levels is someone blizzard really should pay attention to (and I think they are doing a quite good job at it), if they want SC2 to be popular outside a small group of hardcore players. Now I know you will say everyone who isn't innovation should just become better. But then I can also nerf zerg quite a bit and tell Hyun he should look at Automaton 2000 micro bot for some pointers how he should use his zerglings. Is that not realistic? Well telling a gold player he should just look at Hyun how he should play and suck it up is also not realistic. Hm, I just wanted to tell you something along the lines of "you are diamond-master, you don't play just to fool around anymore at this point. You would not have reached that point if you just played for fun". I am also that level, and I most definately play just for fun. For example I never watch my replays to find out what I do wrong, in principle don't go searching around for BO's to follow*, I just like to play. (* Sometimes I do it when one of my matchups really suck, then it takes the fun out of it knowing I will lose anyway without a chance on winning). As I pointed out, there's more than one definition of balance and you picked yours. To me there's two options; -> All races got the potential to play on equal level and win/lose regardless of the map or player. or he other one would be -> Players of equal skill need equal effort to win While I can understand your point I simpl disagree that this is the only valid definition of balance.
I can understand your point, but we still have the issue how to determine the potential of a race? You can look at the top few players, but if the top 5 terrans decide to start a LoL team, does then the potential of the terran race lower? The potential of any race is pretty much limitless if you have infinite (useful) APM.
On July 29 2013 17:16 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +Why would it be balanced then for everyone? You can make a fairly simple definition of balance: people of equal skill playing different races should have equal chance of winning, regardless of their equal skill level. Balance can be different on different skill levels, there can also be changes that specifically direct either lower or higher skill levels. Lets say as stupid example, we prevent warp prism from picking up immortals. Has pretty close to zero influence on lower skill levels (lets say plat and lower). While at top levels it will have a very significant influence on PvZ. Well, but what you describe is like a mathematical theory on existence on something, which you can prove and it's great and everything. However, in reality you deal with the problem of finding the the thing and testing the premises. And that's where you simply have a problem: how do you determine equal skill? I like blizzard's approach with matching players with similar rating, because it is like quantum theory: we can never find out who has more skill, but, therefore, noone can ever disprove that MMR describes a players skill. Hence, defining that MMR=skill and then matching players with similar MMR will achieve exactly what you write. People of similar MMR play each other and, because MMR=skill have balanced winrates at all levels under the top. All that is left is to balance for the prolevel and create a good MMR.
That's not really blizzards approach, but the approach of every RTS maker. However there are limits.
First you can still find out if at a lower level a race is OP. If on average every gold zerg players who switches to protoss ends up in diamond, then it is unlikely to assume they all suddenly became alot better players. Especially when every gold protoss who switches to zerg ends up in bronze. You can also look at the distribution, if 80% of masters league is terran, while 80% of gold of zerg, then it probably means terran is too strong and zerg nog strong enough.
Then we have the problem that there are more than 2 races, if T>P>Z>T, then the MMR can try what it wants, but it will never be a good result.
Finally there is the fun-factor. The majority will not consider being stuck in a lower league due to their race fun. So the majority goes to the strongest race, meaning you only end up playing one matchup. Also lets say we double the HP of marines. In the end the zerg and toss players get terran players as opponents that are so bad they won't autowin. But is it really fun for those zerg and toss players that every terran opponent will only rally marines over?
You are definately correct that the match making reduces balance issues on lower levels, but I strongly disagree it removes them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
