EPTDesignated Balance Discussion Thread - Page 728
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
| ||
lichter
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On August 27 2013 17:38 Sissors wrote: There is only one quantum physics, but there isn't one balance, it depends on the level at which players reside. And then why use current pro level? This topic has shown that many say you should only look at the top 8 worldwide for balance, anyone below top 8 is irrelevant. But why this top 8, and no top 32? top 100? Top 1000? Or why not also make the game enjoyable for lower league players? Why are you looking at what we puny humans can do and not what you could theoretically do with a race? Or even why look at what pros do now, when you know even without any balance changes there will come better players with new ideas. So being top 1% of the game makes you bad? Only on TL... It is impossible to apply different levels of balance to SC2. This is one game, one balance for all. It is the metagames between levels that differ. Your dismissal of my analogy is mistaken. I have not said that you cannot draw any balance insight from anything less than Top X amount of players. But as you go down skill levels, it becomes more difficult to assess balance because there are more mistakes, and mistakes account for a larger amount of 'imbalance' at low levels than high levels. This added variance, which increases as you decrease in skill level, makes it almost impossible to balance at the lowest levels. Again, that does not mean that balance should not be sought, but that balance is best achieved when analyzing higher levels of play because of reduced variance of play. The differences between skill levels are staggering. Compared to pros, most masters players are still quite bad. I'd consider myself bad at this game too. | ||
|
Sissors
1395 Posts
On August 27 2013 17:41 Ghanburighan wrote: I agree that being in the top 1% of the game makes you bad. These players will lose EVERY Bo3 to a top player. And every top player will lose a BO3 against Watson once they decide to teach him SC2. Which means everyone is bad at the game. It is impossible to apply different levels of balance to SC2. Not true, some things have much larger effect on high level players than low level players. Random example, being able to disable autocast on widow mines will have 0.0 effect on a silver player. On pros it will have an effect. Or even larger one, remove widow mines becoming visible just before they shoot. That will have an enormous effect on pros. A quite significant effect on diamond-master players. Still a very small effect on a silver player. While if you give marines +10 HP it will have a huge effect on every level, from bronze to GM. The differences between skill levels are staggering. Compared to pros, most masters players are still quite bad. I'd consider myself bad at this game too. Fine that you hate yourself, but there isn't a single sport where you would be considered bad at it when you are top 1%, even though the world top would still walk over you. | ||
|
aZealot
New Zealand5447 Posts
| ||
|
Sissors
1395 Posts
On August 27 2013 17:48 aZealot wrote: Uh, who the heck is Watson? This is Watson, Watson say hello: ![[image loading]](http://www.visionair.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/watson-ibm-jeopardy.jpg) (IBM supercomputer that won Jeopardy). (Who could have guessed, google image search on 'Watson' came up with Emma Watson, might have seen that one coming  ) | ||
|
lichter
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On August 27 2013 17:47 Sissors wrote: And every top player will lose a BO3 against Watson once they decide to teach him SC2. Which means everyone is bad at the game. Not true, some things have much larger effect on high level players than low level players. Random example, being able to disable autocast on widow mines will have 0.0 effect on a silver player. On pros it will have an effect. Or even larger one, remove widow mines becoming visible just before they shoot. That will have an enormous effect on pros. A quite significant effect on diamond-master players. Still a very small effect on a silver player. While if you give marines +10 HP it will have a huge effect on every level, from bronze to GM. Fine that you hate yourself, but there isn't a single sport where you would be considered bad at it when you are top 1%, even though the world top would still walk over you. Regarding autocast: That is a UI/design change. It is different from game balance. Regarding widow mine visibility: Yes it does have a different effect on different leagues. This only further emphasizes how difficult it is to balance for multiple leagues. A small change similar to that may improve balance for higher levels (since they have the capacity to take advantage of that change), but at low levels, since the change is irrelevant, lower level players will still claim imbalance. Again, the difference maker isn't the existence of different 'balances', but the existence of different skill levels. The gap in those skills are the root for the perceived 'imbalance', and not the state of the game itself. | ||
|
aZealot
New Zealand5447 Posts
I don't get what you mean. Arguably all players can indeed be seen as bad at SC2. But, this is because the skill cap is far from being reached (you only have to compare play from 2010 to 2013). Like I said, I'm struggling to see your point. | ||
|
TheRabidDeer
United States3806 Posts
| ||
|
Sissors
1395 Posts
On August 27 2013 18:02 aZealot wrote: Ok, so Watson is a super-computer. What is your point? That if it played SC2 it would beat most (all?) human players. Does Watson have a head and arms and hands connected to a keyboard? Is it reacting to a screen within a certain context (i.e. ladder/tournament) and playing within a fluid metagame? So, what is the relevance to the SC2 player base? I don't get what you mean. Arguably almost all (heck, perhaps even all) players are bad at SC2. But, this is because the skill cap is far from being reached (you only have to compare players from 2010 to 2013). Like I said, I'm struggling to see your point. That it is completely random to look only at the top 8 players because only they would be good enough, while they are still very far removed from what you can theoretically do with a race. If you want to balance without being limitted by players being bad, then you should balance it for a very advanced AI. And at the same time the game would be horrible for all regular players, but many here would be happy, since at least the AI is having a good time. It is fairly irrelevant if it would be ladder our tournament, or what the metagame is, since a properly programmed AI would simply walk over any human player with ease. My point then is that instead of balancing it only for a completely random subset of top players (generally only top 8, possibly top 16 is seen as relevant), it makes much more sense to try to keep it balanced for everyone. And of course there are limits in how far that is possible. And of course the player needs to have some knowledge of the game, you can't balance if the player didn't know he could upgrade to lair. But only looking at the top 8 and ignoring everyone else is stupid imo. Edit: also how RabidDeer nicely explained it. | ||
|
zerge
Germany162 Posts
Regardless of winrates i think most people agree that zerg is a bit helpless in ZvT from the mid-game on. What do you think about the following changes to the widowmine: 1. Make the mine more visible on creep, maybe more visible than it is off creep. This would reward players with great creepspread and would reduce the damage that 'forgotten' widowmines do in a fast pace game (I have seend this happen in several high level tournaments and on pro players streams time and time again). 2. Make the targeted unit visible to both players (similar to seeker missile), this would give zerg players the option to fight off creep with good micro. Now it is very risky to do that and beeing to aggressive after a succssesful defense can easily loose the game because off how easy it is to loose your army in a very costinefficient manner. I think these changes could help the zerg to get some momentum going and stop the terran from expanding behind his constant rally. Right now the only option to be aggressive seems to be baneling/zergling runbys but they haven not proven to be as effective as everyone thought in my opinion. | ||
|
aZealot
New Zealand5447 Posts
On August 27 2013 18:07 TheRabidDeer wrote: I think their argument is that if we want to argue about balance at the highest levels, it has to be at the theoretical highest which would require a supercomputer to be playing. Which really doesnt make much sense... it just is pointing out the flaw in setting an arbitrary point as the "highest level". Well, in the first place I'm wary of any balance changes. I tend to argue against them, as I think SC2 has sufficient depth/complexity to provide tools for players to solve problems themselves. Any changes, I think, should be slow and incremental. Or, if a raft of changes are indeed required (this is always a possibility) then all of them should be implemented at once. Like a large scale renovation. So that everything is done in one go, and players can negotiate the game's new limits. So, arguments about balancing for top 8/top 4/top 2 etc make little sense to me (at least most of the time). But, even taken on it's own terms a random (and as you say arbitrary) number of 8 I don't think is meant to be taken literally. Rather as indicative of the highest level of play exhibited by the best group of players (2/4/8 etc) at that time. There is no reason (and given the nature of a RTS like SC2) why balance needs to be set at a theoretical level because players don't play at a theoretical level and balance is being set for the best human players not a supercomputer (which isn't playing SC2 anyway). I'm sorry, but this comparison is stupid. It's a phony argument that if you take literally (a good thing to do with many arguments like this), you realise how nonsensical it is. If it's not meant to be taken literally, then again, it is really a nothing argument. | ||
|
lichter
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
| ||
|
hearters
Singapore224 Posts
I think what david kim meant when he talked about balancing for the highest level is actually balancing for the tournament scene and pro-level players, because the vision is for SC2 to be an awesome spectator sport to attract sponsors and money inflow. That's why balance changes are made not just to change win percentages, but also to induce exciting play and some degree of unpredictability. | ||
|
Sissors
1395 Posts
On August 27 2013 18:36 lichter wrote: Using hyperbole does not favor your argument which is predicated on taking things too literally. Obviously "highest level" is a soft set of the highest current skill levels. Computers do not have the limitation of mouse and keyboard inputs, as well as outputs (hands). Different inputs/outputs, different games. I can make a bunch of robot hands for Watson no problem that still are more efficient than any human. The point stays you use a completely arbitrary definition of 'highest level' as excuse to ignore balance for the majority of the players. On August 27 2013 18:10 zerge wrote: Let's get back to balance discussion, ok? Regardless of winrates i think most people agree that zerg is a bit helpless in ZvT from the mid-game on. What do you think about the following changes to the widowmine: I certainly agree that regardless of winrates I would like to see bio mine changed. In the beginning it was a nice change of pace, but currently every single game is pretty much the same, and it is a very volatile matchup. So I don't have problems with changed that reduce widow mine viability, but at the same time you cannot nerf a race and ignore the results on win rates. Currently if you simply check how many zergs are in top 32, etc, they really aren't doing bad. For sure I would really like a boost to siege tanks also. I think what david kim meant when he talked about balancing for the highest level is actually balancing for the tournament scene and pro-level players, because the vision is for SC2 to be an awesome spectator sport to attract sponsors and money inflow. That's why balance changes are made not just to change win percentages, but also to induce exciting play and some degree of unpredictability. Thats also one of the reasons I agree the balance for pros is more important. However more important is not the same as ignoring it for everyone else. If for example due to balance issues no one wants to play anymore below masters level, then soon there also wont be anyone watching pros playing. | ||
|
Sissors
1395 Posts
| ||
|
lichter
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
| ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
| ||
|
Kharnage
Australia920 Posts
On August 27 2013 18:49 Sissors wrote: I certainly agree that regardless of winrates I would like to see bio mine changed. In the beginning it was a nice change of pace, but currently every single game is pretty much the same, and it is a very volatile matchup. So I don't have problems with changed that reduce widow mine viability, but at the same time you cannot nerf a race and ignore the results on win rates. Currently if you simply check how many zergs are in top 32, etc, they really aren't doing bad. For sure I would really like a boost to siege tanks also. ZvT is in a very weird place in HotS. The whole feels like a house of cards. Does anyone disagree with any of these statements? Due to Vipers, tanks are rubbish once the zerg hits hive. Due to tanks being rubbish terran MUST use mines. Due to tanks being rubbish bio mine makes the most sense. Because the best way to play biomine is parade push. Due to medivac speed, roach hydra isn't viable past the early mid game thus mutas are required. Because mutas are required, ling bane have to deal with bio mine. Because of the parade push, zerg cannot transition out of ling bane muta. It seems to me to core of the issue comes down to medivac speed and vipers? Does anyone disagree that nerfing mines will put terran in a very bad place late game since tanks are hard countered by vipers? | ||
|
lichter
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On August 27 2013 19:09 bo1b wrote: I love the overly formal tone that people take on the internet when explaining basic concepts. It's fantastic :D I do it in real life too, I get cussed out a lot because of it lol | ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + | ||
| ||
