Designated Balance Discussion Thread - Page 727

On August 27 2013 16:45 lichter wrote:
Well the main problem of this thread is that most people are only arguing for their own race. A lot of people call for 'balance', but only if the scales do not tip in their favor. It's ludicrous the kind of balance whine some people can come up with.

On August 27 2013 17:00 lichter wrote:
I used basic set theory some time ago (back when I still played) to show how it is not possible to balance below the highest level of play but I am too lazy to find it or make it again. Seriously Diamond guys and below, balance isn't ever going to be your expertise.

On August 27 2013 17:04 aZealot wrote:
Diamond? Heck anything below high GM, I reckon. And even then, many players (especially most semi-pros/pros) are self interested and biased as fuck. There are very few players who can look at their race and race match-ups dispassionately.

On August 27 2013 17:16 Ghanburighan wrote:


I never understood this approach. Sure, a person will not feel real balance in their own games (hell, my silver zerg friend still thinks 3 rax mass marine is imba) but they can watch pro games and analyze. TheDWF is soooo much better than most people I know, but I don't listen carefully to what he says because of his own expertise. I know he doesn't play like Innovation, Flash or Life. I listen to him because he knows a billion pro games which he can reference as evidence.

Also, any bronzie can count win rates, and if a weakness persists for a long enough period, they can see something is wrong. They might not know what is wrong, but discussion will make it clear. Then we listen to the Majors, Juan's, Artosises and Scarlett's of this world, and in their discussion, the biases get reduced and common ground is reached.

And there is nothing wrong in citing such distilled opinions and discussing them at any level.

At the same time, LSN's and other are quite insane. It's not because they are bad at the game (who bloody well knows), it's because their analysis has major holes in them (such as adding genetic dispositions among the premises -__-).

I've said it before, but I'm exactly one of the low league guys. I get to play a few games a week, if I'm lucky... Sitting just above where builds become freaky strange under platinum. I cannot imagine looking at my own games for balance, they look nothing like pro games that I see.

On August 27 2013 17:21 NarutO wrote:
Low league players cannot understand and discuss balance, because from observing progames they don't see mistakes. They often judge win/loss on big fights and while thats the moment that ends the game, the game is often lost beforehand. You can ask any Terran about the effect that 3 early bunkers do make to your build and often times that already leads to a lost timing , bad setup for the midgame and it snowballs. A bad player will just say "Protoss imba, so much aoe lol"

So I can see where you are coming from, but I simply disagree. Being a bad player and having knowledge can and does happen, but generally speaking that is maybe 1-5% (yes that percentage is a mere guess)

On August 27 2013 17:04 aZealot wrote:
Diamond? Heck anything below high GM, I reckon.

Assuming that premise is correct, people who only watch and do not play at high levels can only offer very, very limited insight on balance. Playing the game is vastly different from watching the game, since as an observer we are omniscient and omnipresent in the game. We also do not have to worry about limited actions per minute or the limitations of mechanics when we prescribe solutions or 'what ifs'.

On August 27 2013 17:28 ysnake wrote:
What do you guys think of new maps?

I, as a Zerg player, see Yeonsu and Polar Night complete "Zerg stomper" maps, I like Frost, but it has way too many pathways and creep spread is becoming a problem for me there. Personally, I have them all vetoed.

Also, I hope Widow Mines disappear from ZvT MU, simply because I find them really really annoying to deal with, and are too strong (just lost a game where a random Widow Mine killed 7-8 of my Banelings)

On August 27 2013 17:25 lichter wrote:


The game can only be truly balanced at the highest level of play, because at that level, each race is played with the least variance (mistakes) in each variable (variables being things such as micro, positioning, scouting, build orders, mechanics,e etc). Adding variance adds complexity to balance because you have to account for greater distance from how the race is meant to be played.

Assuming that premise is correct, people who only watch and do not play at high levels can only offer very, very limited insight on balance. Playing the game is vastly different from watching the game, since as an observer we are omniscient and omnipresent in the game. We also do not have to worry about limited actions per minute or the limitations of mechanics when we prescribe solutions or 'what ifs'.

Yes, Diamond and below can offer some insight, but it is extremely limited, and certainly not 700 pages worth.

On August 27 2013 17:28 Sissors wrote:

High GM? I would say anything below Watson if they would ever teach it to play SC2 has no clue about balance and is not affected by it...

Or you know, you can tell people their ideas are stupid because their ideas are stupid instead of because they have a slightly lower rank than you, so they can be discounted and their opinion is irrelevant...


And of course this high level limit is completely arbitrary without any backup why it should be there, besides that you feel like it.

On August 27 2013 17:02 EngrishTeacher wrote:
I've just gone from a sub-50% win rate in zvt to over 80% in the past few days... and all i did differently was making some roaches.

At my level (mid-masters random), going pure muta-ling-bling is just so much more difficult than a Terran executing the MMMM parade. One big mine hit, a brief lapse in attention, one round of missed injects or forgetting to morph banelings = loss.

I find that mixing in about ~10-14 roaches in my main army is IMMENSELY helpful in engagements, as roaches are pretty good at tanking mine hits. No missile upgrades needed, the roaches are just there to lead engagements so the mines go off. Mutas can do this too to an extent, but they tend to clump easily and are a lot more costly in gas than roaches. Moreover, the larger collision size of the roaches means that even if mine hits do go off on your 1-A'ing clumped army, less ling/blings will die.

I usually start to mix in roaches after my 3rd is saturated, before the 2nd wave of MMMM comes when the mine count becomes significant.

TLDR:

Mixing in 10-14 roaches in your main army in ZvT is GOOD.

Advantages:
- Roaches are very good at tanking mine hits - easier to bait than lings, and much less costly than mutas.
- Roaches cost very little gas.
- Roaches are larva efficient.
- Missile upgrade not needed, all that's invested are the 10-14 roaches + roach warren + roach speed.
- Roaches help with mid-game hellbat/hellion cheese.

Disadvantages:
- Takes a bit of gas (400-600) away from mutas.


Any thoughts on just mixing in some roaches into your army as opposed to going roach-bane?

On August 27 2013 17:17 lichter wrote:


It is possible to be reasonably bad (masters) at the game and still have decent or workable ideas. I don't want to discount discussion from those players. More than anything you just need to be smart enough to figure out your experiences or your experiences watching or winrates don't prove widow mines are imba (they might be, but not from the evidence stated), and at least be mature enough not to be biased little bitches.

On August 27 2013 17:34 lichter wrote:


Higher level, more insight.

Lower level, less insight.

There is no arbitrary line where understanding of balance is 0% on one side and 100% on the other.

On a debate regarding quantum physics, would you trust the CERN Scientist or an anonymous redditor?

It is possible to be reasonably bad (masters) at the game

On August 27 2013 17:36 aZealot wrote:


Oh, absolutely. Maybe I misunderstood you. I thought you meant at which point balance becomes or may become an influence in games. I think this really only begins to apply at high GM level. But, even these players who have an opinion based on experience tend to be biased and self-interested. So, even this opinion should be taken with a fair sprinkling of salt.

This is one reason why I tend to be careful of balance opinion from many high level players. Because of the inherent belief that just because you are a high ranked player you are right or your opinion is necessarily better just because of that fact. That does not follow. All all. So, yes. I agree that even bad players can have a view to contribute and can have good ideas.