|
On May 04 2014 14:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2014 13:58 Elyvilon wrote:On May 04 2014 13:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 13:46 Whitewing wrote:On May 04 2014 13:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 13:28 Whitewing wrote:On May 04 2014 13:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 12:39 Whitewing wrote:On May 04 2014 12:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 12:13 Whitewing wrote:
[quote]
Of course it's a buff! It's an entirely different playstyle that has an entirely different reaction. Consider: let's say protoss wants to do a blink stalker all-in but tanks are better against toss because they buffed them to make mech more viable, so toss runs into 3 tanks and gets obliterated. Well, that build isn't viable anymore. Or how about this: different maps will favor different builds. Some maps are better for mech and some are better for bio. Where do you balance for mech compared to bio? How do you balance protoss's anti-mech vs mech on various maps?
You cannot add more options to a race without buffing them. Options are a buff to the race as a whole, plain and simple. Why isn't your hypothetical protoss player scouting? Reacting to what he learns? Reacting to how the terran is playing? Just because terran *can* play differently and protoss *can't* just blindly pick whatever build they want does not make it a buff. Let me put it this way. Terran player wants to make tanks, oh wait, the opponent is protoss? Protoss must be overpowered since tanks sucks vs Protoss, nerf the entire protoss race then until Terran can build 3 tanks every PvT and be able to win games with it. That would be a stupid reason to nerf protoss. Terran being able to either go for tanks in the midgame OR infantry in the midgame is not a fucking buff for the same reason Protoss being able to go Robo or Twilight or Stargate is not a fucking buff. Its literally just fucking options to play a fucking game. It's not a question of scouting. My build has to take into account various potential things you can do. Of course I scout, but my build has to be designed to take your build into account and have the potential to react. If you can open mech and just outright kill blink all-ins all the time as a viable standard, I can't do blink builds anymore. Certainly you don't go blink after observer, unless you want it to be too late. Your response is just plain silly. Bio is perfectly valid against protoss, you don't need tanks against them, therefore tanks being bad against them is irrelevant. Just like protoss don't really make carriers against terran (tanks are more common vs. toss than carriers are vs. terran). Anytime you limit your opponents options that's a buff for your race. Anytime you introduce options for one player, you are removing options for the opponent. That's a buff. I'm sorry but it is. If you want to argue that we should nerf protoss that's different, but pretending it's not a buff for terran in the matchup is just ridiculous. And if you think stargate becoming a viable opener in PvT wasn't a buff to protoss, you're off your rocker. You're just trolling. You don't need colossus against Terrans. Templars work just fine, so if we nerf Colossus to deal 1 damage then it doesn't matter since you can beat terrans without colossus. Your argument is literally that you don't want to have to scout your opponent? Between probe/zealot pokes (to track infantry numbers), hallucinated phoenix scouts, mothership (supported by stalkers), Protoss has a lot of ways to scout whether or not Terran has made 1 or 4 Factories. Your argument is literally that you can't use 1 of your many ways to scout terran? Your argument is literally that you don't want to have to find out if terran is making infantry or if terran is making tanks or if terran is making vikings? Needing to scout the opponent is the complete opposite of a fucking buff, its literally the first step in making any Fog of War based game. The less you need to scout the less finished your RTS is. Colossus are necessary for PvT. If the game goes long enough and enough ghosts come out, you must have colossus to fight that. It has nothing to do with not scouting, and everything to do with the stuff leading up to the scouting. Of course you scout, but your build has to take into account the new options including your prepared reaction after you scout. You don't know what you're talking about, and no, I'm not trolling. What the hell are you talking about? Your example explicitly says that you don't want to make Mech viable because you don't want to send an observer to the terran base to have to know if terran has spent 800mineral/400gas on factories. No, it has nothing to do with what I do or do not want. I'm merely stating that it's a buff to terran. And I'm telling you that needing to scout terran is not a fucking buff. It is simply bringing the race to the minimum standards of what an RTS should be. Those aren't mutually exclusive. Replacing flat tires in a car =/= buffing a car. Bringing something to working condition is not buffing it.
Well, it is a buff in that it increases terran's capabilities within the matchup. A buff is a buff whether it brings a race to equal level or above that; it's a buff if it improves a certain race. Whitewing is right in saying that protoss builds would then have to consider mech as a possibility and therefore be flexible enough to easily switch into double robo immortal production. Therefore toss needs to scout more, can't tech up too quickly because they wouldn't want to commit to a tech path without knowing terran's tech path, and would have to adjust builds to more of a general swiss army knife style that is pretty good vs all but amazing vs nothing. This would make certain protoss builds less effective.
However, this isn't necessarily bad by any means. I don't know why you argue that this isn't a nerf to toss's lack of a need to scout when in fact such a nerf is perfectly acceptable and needed. Of course it is a toss nerf/terran buff, but a necessary one. It's silly to claim that it wouldn't make terran more powerful in certain areas of the matchup especially since terran generally struggles in those areas anyway, so such a buff is fine.
|
Yes, if Protoss needed to scout and react to what Terran is doing in the early stages of the game or risk getting really far behind / losing the game it would be a nerf to Protoss.
It really depends on how Mech was implented whether or not Protoss would need do that however. In the current state of the game, any opening that is good vs Bio is good vs Mech and gives them the ability to scout (Oracle, Observer or Blink + MsC) what production buildings Terran is making at the very least. Any significant changes to the Protoss build would occur after this time. Of course, Mech isn't really viable in the current state of the game so it's a moot point.
And I'm not even really going to get into whether or not mech should be viable, I personally think it's on an okay state as it is atm where we see it rarely as a gimmick strategy.
|
On May 04 2014 15:11 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2014 12:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 10:47 pure.Wasted wrote:On May 04 2014 10:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 09:48 pure.Wasted wrote:On May 04 2014 09:20 Whitewing wrote:On May 04 2014 09:14 TheDwf wrote:On May 04 2014 07:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 06:56 TheDwf wrote:On May 04 2014 06:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Yes, but the resolution to this phenomenon is not by whining about balance. Under representation of a race is far more complex of a matter to resolve. Sorry, I don't understand what your answer has to do with the previous subject? When a matchup is 50/50 by definition it is balanced. No: if AvB is 50:50 but the statistics involve top10 players from the race A against top50 players of the race B, this is a sign of imbalance. Not really, it's a sign that one race is harder to play than the other. If the best terran can go 50/50 against the best toss, that's balance, and everything else is irrelevant. So whether the game is balanced or not depends on the players who are playing it? If that's not the most useless definition of the word 'balance' I've ever encountered, I don't know what is. What if Maru and Polt stop playing SC2 tomorrow, suddenly TvP takes a huge dive because no one else can mechanically reproduce their success, and, what? The game is now imbalanced because it went from 50/50 to 55/45 based on two top 5 players disappearing? That's a joke if ever there was one. What if we make Terran even harder to play mechanically than it is now, so that there are zero Terrans in Code S. There's still the chance that if a good enough player comes along to play Terran, like, five times better than Maru is now, he'll slaughter everyone... so... I guess the game would still be potentially imbalanced in Terran's favor, in some absurd and clearly useless meaning of the words? A balanced MU is one where Hypothetical Player playing Race A can play his mirror universe twin who plays Race B and they will come out at 50/50 over any long-enough stretch. That is balance. Very simple. Objectively immeasurable because there are no mirror universe twins who have been playing different races for the exact same period of time, but subjectively very measurable because we have brains that are capable of entertaining hypothetical scenarios. Like here's a hypothetical scenario, MVP.Tails starts playing Terran. He's never heard from again for as long as he lives. That's not balance.Options are a buff. If terran can go mech and have it be equally as effective as bio, then that's a buff because protoss builds and strategies need to take that into account. That limits protoss, which is a buff. Please show me the Terran who has said that, if Terran gets new options and they are too strong for Protoss to handle, shifting the balance completely in Terran's favor, we are against a Protoss buff. Cart before the horse. If we have evidence that a matchup can be 50:50 and is being executed as such--we don't ignore that data. If Maru and Polt never existed, and we have 0 players in top ranks, then you can make the hypothesis (based on evidence at hand) that Terran cannot beat Protoss. Right now we have empirical proof that Terrans can beat protoss consistently, some terrans at least. What we don't have proof of is if this performance is repeatable. Whether we are okay or not with its irrepeatability is a different one from balance. Let me get this right. So until Maru, arguably the best Terran in the world, possibly the best player in the world, starts to have a less than 50-50 record against someone like Tassadar, we can't judge the game to be imbalanced? Please tell me your position is not reducible to that. I'm saying that we can't use evidence for things it does not show causation to. Maru is is able to stay in the top ranks of the GSL. That means that it is possible to play terran in the top ranks of the GSL. The top terran players have about a 50% winrate vs top protoss players--that means (by definition) that top level TvP is balanced. Just because its balanced does not mean it isn't problematic. Patches can be introduced to fix things that aren't imbalanced but are problematic. The reason I say this is because a lot of players conflate lack of Terran representation with winrate imbalance when they are not the same things. They usually show correlation, but they don't causate. Once again, its about statistics. Terran has an overall 50% winrate against Protoss. They also have a lack of representation. Right now, people want to attribute the lack of representation to be caused by imbalance. But there is no proof of that. Lack of representation, combined with with even winrates in top level play, suggests that the problem is ability to execute strategies. Either Protoss Strategies are too easy to execute, or Terran strategies are too difficult to execute. And that is assuming the lack of terran representation is correlated to high level of protoss representation. Zerg might be kicking terrans out, out of game problems that strangely affects terrans more ("wrist issues"), etc... But you can't blame imbalance when there's a 50/50 winrate. Lol, using your theory, we can't ever talk about imbalance at all. Why are you using Maru, he is the best terran in the world but hardly 'perfect'. True imbalance by your definition can only be achieved when both players playing perfectly which has never and will never happen. Even back in the 1-1-1 days, I can go to any 1-1-1 game and point out where the protoss made a mistake. And even your last point, the difficulty of execution IS part of balance. When most people talk about balance at the top level, it probably means if you have the top 10-20 of each race play each other, you get a close to 50/50 win rate.
Um, using my theory, we would only be able to discuss things we have evidence for. The goal is not whether two hypothetical players play perfectly, the goal is to be able to see if we have empirical data that shows fairness in a given matchup.
Top terran players are even with top protoss players. There just also happens to be more protoss players than terran players. However, Maru's personal skills does not hinge on how many *other* terrans are nearby him. A player's personal skill is separate from the number of people in the sub-population he is in.
We know the skill of top players are even--hence the game is balanced.
We also know that there is a discrepency in population sizes--this is a separate issue that *might* tie to balance, but not necessarily. hence why you can't just say its an imbalance.
Only talk about what you have evidence to talk about.
|
On May 04 2014 16:03 Pursuit_ wrote:
Yes, if Protoss needed to scout and react to what Terran is doing in the early stages of the game or risk getting really far behind / losing the game it would be a nerf to Protoss.
It really depends on how Mech was implented whether or not Protoss would need do that however. In the current state of the game, any opening that is good vs Bio is good vs Mech and gives them the ability to scout (Oracle, Observer or Blink + MsC) what production buildings Terran is making at the very least. Any significant changes to the Protoss build would occur after this time. Of course, Mech isn't really viable in the current state of the game so it's a moot point.
And I'm not even really going to get into whether or not mech should be viable, I personally think it's on an okay state as it is atm where we see it rarely as a gimmick strategy.
by that standard--does the statistic that more terran players have carpel tunnel than protoss players mean that socialized healthcare is a terran buff and a protoss nerf?
This is the problem with vague generalities such as calling protoss scouting a nerf.
|
I had a thought about Swarm Hosts the past few days, I was thinking: "what if Locusts were melee? How will this effect the game?" and I remembered that Blizzard had them melee in the first place, they changed it in pre-pre-alpha of HotS (+ Show Spoiler + this is the first time we see SH and the last time we see Locusts being melee).
So I wanted to ask: Do you think a change to Locust attack range to melee while possibly increasing durability and/or speed will cause a change in the playstyle of SH? I am curious to hear some opinions on this as I am a bit natural about this because ToD proved this past week that protoss can handle the SH style using Zealot+DT drop harras and (I honestly cant remember who that was >.<) heavy slow mech pushes utilizing Ravens can "out-slow-push" SH in the long run. But this thing just doesnt get out of my head.
+ Show Spoiler +If I posted this in the wrong place I will edit this out.
|
On May 04 2014 16:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2014 15:11 vthree wrote:On May 04 2014 12:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 10:47 pure.Wasted wrote:On May 04 2014 10:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 09:48 pure.Wasted wrote:On May 04 2014 09:20 Whitewing wrote:On May 04 2014 09:14 TheDwf wrote:On May 04 2014 07:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 06:56 TheDwf wrote:
[quote]
Sorry, I don't understand what your answer has to do with the previous subject? When a matchup is 50/50 by definition it is balanced. No: if AvB is 50:50 but the statistics involve top10 players from the race A against top50 players of the race B, this is a sign of imbalance. Not really, it's a sign that one race is harder to play than the other. If the best terran can go 50/50 against the best toss, that's balance, and everything else is irrelevant. So whether the game is balanced or not depends on the players who are playing it? If that's not the most useless definition of the word 'balance' I've ever encountered, I don't know what is. What if Maru and Polt stop playing SC2 tomorrow, suddenly TvP takes a huge dive because no one else can mechanically reproduce their success, and, what? The game is now imbalanced because it went from 50/50 to 55/45 based on two top 5 players disappearing? That's a joke if ever there was one. What if we make Terran even harder to play mechanically than it is now, so that there are zero Terrans in Code S. There's still the chance that if a good enough player comes along to play Terran, like, five times better than Maru is now, he'll slaughter everyone... so... I guess the game would still be potentially imbalanced in Terran's favor, in some absurd and clearly useless meaning of the words? A balanced MU is one where Hypothetical Player playing Race A can play his mirror universe twin who plays Race B and they will come out at 50/50 over any long-enough stretch. That is balance. Very simple. Objectively immeasurable because there are no mirror universe twins who have been playing different races for the exact same period of time, but subjectively very measurable because we have brains that are capable of entertaining hypothetical scenarios. Like here's a hypothetical scenario, MVP.Tails starts playing Terran. He's never heard from again for as long as he lives. That's not balance.Options are a buff. If terran can go mech and have it be equally as effective as bio, then that's a buff because protoss builds and strategies need to take that into account. That limits protoss, which is a buff. Please show me the Terran who has said that, if Terran gets new options and they are too strong for Protoss to handle, shifting the balance completely in Terran's favor, we are against a Protoss buff. Cart before the horse. If we have evidence that a matchup can be 50:50 and is being executed as such--we don't ignore that data. If Maru and Polt never existed, and we have 0 players in top ranks, then you can make the hypothesis (based on evidence at hand) that Terran cannot beat Protoss. Right now we have empirical proof that Terrans can beat protoss consistently, some terrans at least. What we don't have proof of is if this performance is repeatable. Whether we are okay or not with its irrepeatability is a different one from balance. Let me get this right. So until Maru, arguably the best Terran in the world, possibly the best player in the world, starts to have a less than 50-50 record against someone like Tassadar, we can't judge the game to be imbalanced? Please tell me your position is not reducible to that. I'm saying that we can't use evidence for things it does not show causation to. Maru is is able to stay in the top ranks of the GSL. That means that it is possible to play terran in the top ranks of the GSL. The top terran players have about a 50% winrate vs top protoss players--that means (by definition) that top level TvP is balanced. Just because its balanced does not mean it isn't problematic. Patches can be introduced to fix things that aren't imbalanced but are problematic. The reason I say this is because a lot of players conflate lack of Terran representation with winrate imbalance when they are not the same things. They usually show correlation, but they don't causate. Once again, its about statistics. Terran has an overall 50% winrate against Protoss. They also have a lack of representation. Right now, people want to attribute the lack of representation to be caused by imbalance. But there is no proof of that. Lack of representation, combined with with even winrates in top level play, suggests that the problem is ability to execute strategies. Either Protoss Strategies are too easy to execute, or Terran strategies are too difficult to execute. And that is assuming the lack of terran representation is correlated to high level of protoss representation. Zerg might be kicking terrans out, out of game problems that strangely affects terrans more ("wrist issues"), etc... But you can't blame imbalance when there's a 50/50 winrate. Lol, using your theory, we can't ever talk about imbalance at all. Why are you using Maru, he is the best terran in the world but hardly 'perfect'. True imbalance by your definition can only be achieved when both players playing perfectly which has never and will never happen. Even back in the 1-1-1 days, I can go to any 1-1-1 game and point out where the protoss made a mistake. And even your last point, the difficulty of execution IS part of balance. When most people talk about balance at the top level, it probably means if you have the top 10-20 of each race play each other, you get a close to 50/50 win rate. Um, using my theory, we would only be able to discuss things we have evidence for. The goal is not whether two hypothetical players play perfectly, the goal is to be able to see if we have empirical data that shows fairness in a given matchup. Top terran players are even with top protoss players. There just also happens to be more protoss players than terran players. However, Maru's personal skills does not hinge on how many *other* terrans are nearby him. A player's personal skill is separate from the number of people in the sub-population he is in. We know the skill of top players are even--hence the game is balanced. We also know that there is a discrepency in population sizes--this is a separate issue that *might* tie to balance, but not necessarily. hence why you can't just say its an imbalance. Only talk about what you have evidence to talk about.
Well it seems quite hard to try to argue with you since you really do not seem to understand why win-ratios will always go towards 50/50.
Even the day there are not Terrans in Code S, the day a Terran has not won a single tournament for 10 years and are all out of GM and Master - win ratios will still be 50/50.
As of today, it is of course not as bad as that. But we do not have Terran players winning tournaments at all and only a few even able to make it into Code S. Those who does gets kicked out in round 32/16. However, win ratios will always lean to 50/50. And so on.
If that is the only way to measure balance, no matter what happends in this game it will always be "balanced" and therefore I do not understand why you talk about it? Because by your logics, the game is and will always balanced.
|
On May 04 2014 16:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2014 15:11 vthree wrote:On May 04 2014 12:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 10:47 pure.Wasted wrote:On May 04 2014 10:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 09:48 pure.Wasted wrote:On May 04 2014 09:20 Whitewing wrote:On May 04 2014 09:14 TheDwf wrote:On May 04 2014 07:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 06:56 TheDwf wrote:
[quote]
Sorry, I don't understand what your answer has to do with the previous subject? When a matchup is 50/50 by definition it is balanced. No: if AvB is 50:50 but the statistics involve top10 players from the race A against top50 players of the race B, this is a sign of imbalance. Not really, it's a sign that one race is harder to play than the other. If the best terran can go 50/50 against the best toss, that's balance, and everything else is irrelevant. So whether the game is balanced or not depends on the players who are playing it? If that's not the most useless definition of the word 'balance' I've ever encountered, I don't know what is. What if Maru and Polt stop playing SC2 tomorrow, suddenly TvP takes a huge dive because no one else can mechanically reproduce their success, and, what? The game is now imbalanced because it went from 50/50 to 55/45 based on two top 5 players disappearing? That's a joke if ever there was one. What if we make Terran even harder to play mechanically than it is now, so that there are zero Terrans in Code S. There's still the chance that if a good enough player comes along to play Terran, like, five times better than Maru is now, he'll slaughter everyone... so... I guess the game would still be potentially imbalanced in Terran's favor, in some absurd and clearly useless meaning of the words? A balanced MU is one where Hypothetical Player playing Race A can play his mirror universe twin who plays Race B and they will come out at 50/50 over any long-enough stretch. That is balance. Very simple. Objectively immeasurable because there are no mirror universe twins who have been playing different races for the exact same period of time, but subjectively very measurable because we have brains that are capable of entertaining hypothetical scenarios. Like here's a hypothetical scenario, MVP.Tails starts playing Terran. He's never heard from again for as long as he lives. That's not balance.Options are a buff. If terran can go mech and have it be equally as effective as bio, then that's a buff because protoss builds and strategies need to take that into account. That limits protoss, which is a buff. Please show me the Terran who has said that, if Terran gets new options and they are too strong for Protoss to handle, shifting the balance completely in Terran's favor, we are against a Protoss buff. Cart before the horse. If we have evidence that a matchup can be 50:50 and is being executed as such--we don't ignore that data. If Maru and Polt never existed, and we have 0 players in top ranks, then you can make the hypothesis (based on evidence at hand) that Terran cannot beat Protoss. Right now we have empirical proof that Terrans can beat protoss consistently, some terrans at least. What we don't have proof of is if this performance is repeatable. Whether we are okay or not with its irrepeatability is a different one from balance. Let me get this right. So until Maru, arguably the best Terran in the world, possibly the best player in the world, starts to have a less than 50-50 record against someone like Tassadar, we can't judge the game to be imbalanced? Please tell me your position is not reducible to that. I'm saying that we can't use evidence for things it does not show causation to. Maru is is able to stay in the top ranks of the GSL. That means that it is possible to play terran in the top ranks of the GSL. The top terran players have about a 50% winrate vs top protoss players--that means (by definition) that top level TvP is balanced. Just because its balanced does not mean it isn't problematic. Patches can be introduced to fix things that aren't imbalanced but are problematic. The reason I say this is because a lot of players conflate lack of Terran representation with winrate imbalance when they are not the same things. They usually show correlation, but they don't causate. Once again, its about statistics. Terran has an overall 50% winrate against Protoss. They also have a lack of representation. Right now, people want to attribute the lack of representation to be caused by imbalance. But there is no proof of that. Lack of representation, combined with with even winrates in top level play, suggests that the problem is ability to execute strategies. Either Protoss Strategies are too easy to execute, or Terran strategies are too difficult to execute. And that is assuming the lack of terran representation is correlated to high level of protoss representation. Zerg might be kicking terrans out, out of game problems that strangely affects terrans more ("wrist issues"), etc... But you can't blame imbalance when there's a 50/50 winrate. Lol, using your theory, we can't ever talk about imbalance at all. Why are you using Maru, he is the best terran in the world but hardly 'perfect'. True imbalance by your definition can only be achieved when both players playing perfectly which has never and will never happen. Even back in the 1-1-1 days, I can go to any 1-1-1 game and point out where the protoss made a mistake. And even your last point, the difficulty of execution IS part of balance. When most people talk about balance at the top level, it probably means if you have the top 10-20 of each race play each other, you get a close to 50/50 win rate. Um, using my theory, we would only be able to discuss things we have evidence for. The goal is not whether two hypothetical players play perfectly, the goal is to be able to see if we have empirical data that shows fairness in a given matchup. Top terran players are even with top protoss players. There just also happens to be more protoss players than terran players. However, Maru's personal skills does not hinge on how many *other* terrans are nearby him. A player's personal skill is separate from the number of people in the sub-population he is in. We know the skill of top players are even--hence the game is balanced. We also know that there is a discrepency in population sizes--this is a separate issue that *might* tie to balance, but not necessarily. hence why you can't just say its an imbalance. Only talk about what you have evidence to talk about.
What? That doesn't make sense what's so ever. Even if no terrans were in the top 100 players in the world, you could make the same claim. There can never be any 100% absolutely correct evidence for imbalance. It is always POSSIBLE that the 100 best players just happen to play protoss and zerg, no?
Maru having 50%+ TvP isn't any 'evidence', it *might* just be that protoss players just play worse against him. You can't 100% prove that is not the case.
|
Vatican City State431 Posts
I don't understand David Kim's obsession with upgrades..The other 2 races got units buffs but Terran always got upgrade "buffs". The problem in ZvT is the combination banelings+mass muta and hellbats doesn't do well against neither of these 2 units..The only reason muta got huge buff in HOTS was the widow mine which now is terrible and only tickle mutas...I think D.Kim's knowledge of the game is atrociously bad and you can see that in all the patches explanations.
|
On May 04 2014 19:29 p14c wrote:
I don't understand David Kim's obsession with upgrades..The other 2 races got units buffs but Terran always got upgrade "buffs". The problem in ZvT is the combination banelings+mass muta and hellbats doesn't do well against neither of these 2 units..The only reason muta got huge buff in HOTS was the widow mine which now is terrible and only tickle mutas...I think D.Kim's knowledge of the game is atrociously bad and you can see that in all the patches explanations.
Mainproblem is that in sc2 exists only hardcounter units. every single change can have a huge impact, we saw already too much extreme cases.
|
Russian Federation367 Posts
On May 04 2014 17:38 TheFlexN wrote:I had a thought about Swarm Hosts the past few days, I was thinking: "what if Locusts were melee? How will this effect the game?" and I remembered that Blizzard had them melee in the first place, they changed it in pre-pre-alpha of HotS ( + Show Spoiler + this is the first time we see SH and the last time we see Locusts being melee). So I wanted to ask: Do you think a change to Locust attack range to melee while possibly increasing durability and/or speed will cause a change in the playstyle of SH? I am curious to hear some opinions on this as I am a bit natural about this because ToD proved this past week that protoss can handle the SH style using Zealot+DT drop harras and (I honestly cant remember who that was >.<) heavy slow mech pushes utilizing Ravens can "out-slow-push" SH in the long run. But this thing just doesnt get out of my head. + Show Spoiler +If I posted this in the wrong place I will edit this out.
I like your "melee" idea. It will help terran a lot. Mech players will be able to kill melee locust much more easily with tanks and bio players could micro against them like they do against zealot or lings. Anyways there is one more good change for swarm hosts (by the way it was already done with other unit - infestor): locust should NOT get upgrades like infested terrans. This will force zerg do anything more than just SH.
|
On May 04 2014 17:38 TheFlexN wrote:I had a thought about Swarm Hosts the past few days, I was thinking: "what if Locusts were melee? How will this effect the game?" and I remembered that Blizzard had them melee in the first place, they changed it in pre-pre-alpha of HotS ( + Show Spoiler + this is the first time we see SH and the last time we see Locusts being melee). So I wanted to ask: Do you think a change to Locust attack range to melee while possibly increasing durability and/or speed will cause a change in the playstyle of SH? I am curious to hear some opinions on this as I am a bit natural about this because ToD proved this past week that protoss can handle the SH style using Zealot+DT drop harras and (I honestly cant remember who that was >.<) heavy slow mech pushes utilizing Ravens can "out-slow-push" SH in the long run. But this thing just doesnt get out of my head. + Show Spoiler +If I posted this in the wrong place I will edit this out.
The problem with that is that SH becomes just a cheaper version of broodlords (more than what they currently are), while they were changed to make the "ranged" tech more appealing.
That said, I always thought that reducing the locusts' range from 3 to 2 could solve some of the issues. At 2 range only a bunch of locusts can shoot at the same time, so swarm hosts becomes redundant after a certain number unless the Z player carefully positions them in a large concave and/or use them in multiple locations - something that most Z players don't need to do nowadays.
The spawn rate with Enduring Locusts is a huge design problem too. The SH in itself has potential as long as both the Z and the opponent have to manage the locusts' wave... e.g having a 5-10" window between the waves makes for a tense situation, the Zerg has to position and/or syncronize his units to cover that time window, while the opponent has to take the opportunity and move forward. Problem is, that just isn't the case with 25" cooldown and 25" lifespan which essential makes a continuous stream of units. Whoever thought that was a good idea is a troll.
|
I feel that they might as well remove Durable Materials upgrade from raven and just grant it to them automatically.
They could also rething Neosteel Frames upgrade
|
On May 04 2014 19:21 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2014 16:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 15:11 vthree wrote:On May 04 2014 12:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 10:47 pure.Wasted wrote:On May 04 2014 10:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 09:48 pure.Wasted wrote:On May 04 2014 09:20 Whitewing wrote:On May 04 2014 09:14 TheDwf wrote:On May 04 2014 07:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
When a matchup is 50/50 by definition it is balanced. No: if AvB is 50:50 but the statistics involve top10 players from the race A against top50 players of the race B, this is a sign of imbalance. Not really, it's a sign that one race is harder to play than the other. If the best terran can go 50/50 against the best toss, that's balance, and everything else is irrelevant. So whether the game is balanced or not depends on the players who are playing it? If that's not the most useless definition of the word 'balance' I've ever encountered, I don't know what is. What if Maru and Polt stop playing SC2 tomorrow, suddenly TvP takes a huge dive because no one else can mechanically reproduce their success, and, what? The game is now imbalanced because it went from 50/50 to 55/45 based on two top 5 players disappearing? That's a joke if ever there was one. What if we make Terran even harder to play mechanically than it is now, so that there are zero Terrans in Code S. There's still the chance that if a good enough player comes along to play Terran, like, five times better than Maru is now, he'll slaughter everyone... so... I guess the game would still be potentially imbalanced in Terran's favor, in some absurd and clearly useless meaning of the words? A balanced MU is one where Hypothetical Player playing Race A can play his mirror universe twin who plays Race B and they will come out at 50/50 over any long-enough stretch. That is balance. Very simple. Objectively immeasurable because there are no mirror universe twins who have been playing different races for the exact same period of time, but subjectively very measurable because we have brains that are capable of entertaining hypothetical scenarios. Like here's a hypothetical scenario, MVP.Tails starts playing Terran. He's never heard from again for as long as he lives. That's not balance.Options are a buff. If terran can go mech and have it be equally as effective as bio, then that's a buff because protoss builds and strategies need to take that into account. That limits protoss, which is a buff. Please show me the Terran who has said that, if Terran gets new options and they are too strong for Protoss to handle, shifting the balance completely in Terran's favor, we are against a Protoss buff. Cart before the horse. If we have evidence that a matchup can be 50:50 and is being executed as such--we don't ignore that data. If Maru and Polt never existed, and we have 0 players in top ranks, then you can make the hypothesis (based on evidence at hand) that Terran cannot beat Protoss. Right now we have empirical proof that Terrans can beat protoss consistently, some terrans at least. What we don't have proof of is if this performance is repeatable. Whether we are okay or not with its irrepeatability is a different one from balance. Let me get this right. So until Maru, arguably the best Terran in the world, possibly the best player in the world, starts to have a less than 50-50 record against someone like Tassadar, we can't judge the game to be imbalanced? Please tell me your position is not reducible to that. I'm saying that we can't use evidence for things it does not show causation to. Maru is is able to stay in the top ranks of the GSL. That means that it is possible to play terran in the top ranks of the GSL. The top terran players have about a 50% winrate vs top protoss players--that means (by definition) that top level TvP is balanced. Just because its balanced does not mean it isn't problematic. Patches can be introduced to fix things that aren't imbalanced but are problematic. The reason I say this is because a lot of players conflate lack of Terran representation with winrate imbalance when they are not the same things. They usually show correlation, but they don't causate. Once again, its about statistics. Terran has an overall 50% winrate against Protoss. They also have a lack of representation. Right now, people want to attribute the lack of representation to be caused by imbalance. But there is no proof of that. Lack of representation, combined with with even winrates in top level play, suggests that the problem is ability to execute strategies. Either Protoss Strategies are too easy to execute, or Terran strategies are too difficult to execute. And that is assuming the lack of terran representation is correlated to high level of protoss representation. Zerg might be kicking terrans out, out of game problems that strangely affects terrans more ("wrist issues"), etc... But you can't blame imbalance when there's a 50/50 winrate. Lol, using your theory, we can't ever talk about imbalance at all. Why are you using Maru, he is the best terran in the world but hardly 'perfect'. True imbalance by your definition can only be achieved when both players playing perfectly which has never and will never happen. Even back in the 1-1-1 days, I can go to any 1-1-1 game and point out where the protoss made a mistake. And even your last point, the difficulty of execution IS part of balance. When most people talk about balance at the top level, it probably means if you have the top 10-20 of each race play each other, you get a close to 50/50 win rate. Um, using my theory, we would only be able to discuss things we have evidence for. The goal is not whether two hypothetical players play perfectly, the goal is to be able to see if we have empirical data that shows fairness in a given matchup. Top terran players are even with top protoss players. There just also happens to be more protoss players than terran players. However, Maru's personal skills does not hinge on how many *other* terrans are nearby him. A player's personal skill is separate from the number of people in the sub-population he is in. We know the skill of top players are even--hence the game is balanced. We also know that there is a discrepency in population sizes--this is a separate issue that *might* tie to balance, but not necessarily. hence why you can't just say its an imbalance. Only talk about what you have evidence to talk about. What? That doesn't make sense what's so ever. Even if no terrans were in the top 100 players in the world, you could make the same claim. There can never be any 100% absolutely correct evidence for imbalance. It is always POSSIBLE that the 100 best players just happen to play protoss and zerg, no? Maru having 50%+ TvP isn't any 'evidence', it *might* just be that protoss players just play worse against him. You can't 100% prove that is not the case.
My balance definition: Over a long period of time race participation in pro tournaments is even, and winrates are 50/50 in all MU.
Let's play through a scenario:
1. The game is perfectly balanced according to my definition.
2. One race is buffed.
3. Winrates will favor the buffed race over a certain amount of time.
4. Winrates will return to 50/50 but the buffed race will be over represented.
Looking at winrates alone can be miss-leading if you already reached stage 4.
|
On May 04 2014 19:21 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2014 16:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 15:11 vthree wrote:On May 04 2014 12:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 10:47 pure.Wasted wrote:On May 04 2014 10:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 09:48 pure.Wasted wrote:On May 04 2014 09:20 Whitewing wrote:On May 04 2014 09:14 TheDwf wrote:On May 04 2014 07:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
When a matchup is 50/50 by definition it is balanced. No: if AvB is 50:50 but the statistics involve top10 players from the race A against top50 players of the race B, this is a sign of imbalance. Not really, it's a sign that one race is harder to play than the other. If the best terran can go 50/50 against the best toss, that's balance, and everything else is irrelevant. So whether the game is balanced or not depends on the players who are playing it? If that's not the most useless definition of the word 'balance' I've ever encountered, I don't know what is. What if Maru and Polt stop playing SC2 tomorrow, suddenly TvP takes a huge dive because no one else can mechanically reproduce their success, and, what? The game is now imbalanced because it went from 50/50 to 55/45 based on two top 5 players disappearing? That's a joke if ever there was one. What if we make Terran even harder to play mechanically than it is now, so that there are zero Terrans in Code S. There's still the chance that if a good enough player comes along to play Terran, like, five times better than Maru is now, he'll slaughter everyone... so... I guess the game would still be potentially imbalanced in Terran's favor, in some absurd and clearly useless meaning of the words? A balanced MU is one where Hypothetical Player playing Race A can play his mirror universe twin who plays Race B and they will come out at 50/50 over any long-enough stretch. That is balance. Very simple. Objectively immeasurable because there are no mirror universe twins who have been playing different races for the exact same period of time, but subjectively very measurable because we have brains that are capable of entertaining hypothetical scenarios. Like here's a hypothetical scenario, MVP.Tails starts playing Terran. He's never heard from again for as long as he lives. That's not balance.Options are a buff. If terran can go mech and have it be equally as effective as bio, then that's a buff because protoss builds and strategies need to take that into account. That limits protoss, which is a buff. Please show me the Terran who has said that, if Terran gets new options and they are too strong for Protoss to handle, shifting the balance completely in Terran's favor, we are against a Protoss buff. Cart before the horse. If we have evidence that a matchup can be 50:50 and is being executed as such--we don't ignore that data. If Maru and Polt never existed, and we have 0 players in top ranks, then you can make the hypothesis (based on evidence at hand) that Terran cannot beat Protoss. Right now we have empirical proof that Terrans can beat protoss consistently, some terrans at least. What we don't have proof of is if this performance is repeatable. Whether we are okay or not with its irrepeatability is a different one from balance. Let me get this right. So until Maru, arguably the best Terran in the world, possibly the best player in the world, starts to have a less than 50-50 record against someone like Tassadar, we can't judge the game to be imbalanced? Please tell me your position is not reducible to that. I'm saying that we can't use evidence for things it does not show causation to. Maru is is able to stay in the top ranks of the GSL. That means that it is possible to play terran in the top ranks of the GSL. The top terran players have about a 50% winrate vs top protoss players--that means (by definition) that top level TvP is balanced. Just because its balanced does not mean it isn't problematic. Patches can be introduced to fix things that aren't imbalanced but are problematic. The reason I say this is because a lot of players conflate lack of Terran representation with winrate imbalance when they are not the same things. They usually show correlation, but they don't causate. Once again, its about statistics. Terran has an overall 50% winrate against Protoss. They also have a lack of representation. Right now, people want to attribute the lack of representation to be caused by imbalance. But there is no proof of that. Lack of representation, combined with with even winrates in top level play, suggests that the problem is ability to execute strategies. Either Protoss Strategies are too easy to execute, or Terran strategies are too difficult to execute. And that is assuming the lack of terran representation is correlated to high level of protoss representation. Zerg might be kicking terrans out, out of game problems that strangely affects terrans more ("wrist issues"), etc... But you can't blame imbalance when there's a 50/50 winrate. Lol, using your theory, we can't ever talk about imbalance at all. Why are you using Maru, he is the best terran in the world but hardly 'perfect'. True imbalance by your definition can only be achieved when both players playing perfectly which has never and will never happen. Even back in the 1-1-1 days, I can go to any 1-1-1 game and point out where the protoss made a mistake. And even your last point, the difficulty of execution IS part of balance. When most people talk about balance at the top level, it probably means if you have the top 10-20 of each race play each other, you get a close to 50/50 win rate. Um, using my theory, we would only be able to discuss things we have evidence for. The goal is not whether two hypothetical players play perfectly, the goal is to be able to see if we have empirical data that shows fairness in a given matchup. Top terran players are even with top protoss players. There just also happens to be more protoss players than terran players. However, Maru's personal skills does not hinge on how many *other* terrans are nearby him. A player's personal skill is separate from the number of people in the sub-population he is in. We know the skill of top players are even--hence the game is balanced. We also know that there is a discrepency in population sizes--this is a separate issue that *might* tie to balance, but not necessarily. hence why you can't just say its an imbalance. Only talk about what you have evidence to talk about. What? That doesn't make sense what's so ever. Even if no terrans were in the top 100 players in the world, you could make the same claim. There can never be any 100% absolutely correct evidence for imbalance. It is always POSSIBLE that the 100 best players just happen to play protoss and zerg, no? Maru having 50%+ TvP isn't any 'evidence', it *might* just be that protoss players just play worse against him. You can't 100% prove that is not the case.
Which is why you only deal with problems that the evidence directly relates to.
If the problem we have is race representation (like Protoss in 2010/2011, or Terran in 2013/2014) then we make changes in an effort to fix race representation. If the problem is imbalance (such as the 40% winrates of terrans in the BL/Infestor era) then we make changes to fix that. If the problem is cosmetic/unintended playstyles (such as the 111 era of TvP, or the SoulTrain vs BL/Infestor era of PvZ) then we make changes because we as a community did not want our game to play in that style.
But you don't call something with a 50% winrate for both sides imba for much the same reason you shouldn't be calling Bl/Infestor "cheese" or "eco-cheese" like terrans kept saying post queen patch.
That is mainly a habit of wanting to vilify the opposing side by using spiteful rhetoric and malicious labels to make you feel you're in the right. Its damn childish and will never lead to any meaningful discussion outside of witch hunts.
We don't take evidence pertaining to one thing and then pretend it doesn't exist because we want to label something opposite to what the evidence dictates.
|
On May 04 2014 22:50 submarine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2014 19:21 vthree wrote:On May 04 2014 16:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 15:11 vthree wrote:On May 04 2014 12:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 10:47 pure.Wasted wrote:On May 04 2014 10:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 09:48 pure.Wasted wrote:On May 04 2014 09:20 Whitewing wrote:On May 04 2014 09:14 TheDwf wrote:
[quote]
No: if AvB is 50:50 but the statistics involve top10 players from the race A against top50 players of the race B, this is a sign of imbalance. Not really, it's a sign that one race is harder to play than the other. If the best terran can go 50/50 against the best toss, that's balance, and everything else is irrelevant. So whether the game is balanced or not depends on the players who are playing it? If that's not the most useless definition of the word 'balance' I've ever encountered, I don't know what is. What if Maru and Polt stop playing SC2 tomorrow, suddenly TvP takes a huge dive because no one else can mechanically reproduce their success, and, what? The game is now imbalanced because it went from 50/50 to 55/45 based on two top 5 players disappearing? That's a joke if ever there was one. What if we make Terran even harder to play mechanically than it is now, so that there are zero Terrans in Code S. There's still the chance that if a good enough player comes along to play Terran, like, five times better than Maru is now, he'll slaughter everyone... so... I guess the game would still be potentially imbalanced in Terran's favor, in some absurd and clearly useless meaning of the words? A balanced MU is one where Hypothetical Player playing Race A can play his mirror universe twin who plays Race B and they will come out at 50/50 over any long-enough stretch. That is balance. Very simple. Objectively immeasurable because there are no mirror universe twins who have been playing different races for the exact same period of time, but subjectively very measurable because we have brains that are capable of entertaining hypothetical scenarios. Like here's a hypothetical scenario, MVP.Tails starts playing Terran. He's never heard from again for as long as he lives. That's not balance.Options are a buff. If terran can go mech and have it be equally as effective as bio, then that's a buff because protoss builds and strategies need to take that into account. That limits protoss, which is a buff. Please show me the Terran who has said that, if Terran gets new options and they are too strong for Protoss to handle, shifting the balance completely in Terran's favor, we are against a Protoss buff. Cart before the horse. If we have evidence that a matchup can be 50:50 and is being executed as such--we don't ignore that data. If Maru and Polt never existed, and we have 0 players in top ranks, then you can make the hypothesis (based on evidence at hand) that Terran cannot beat Protoss. Right now we have empirical proof that Terrans can beat protoss consistently, some terrans at least. What we don't have proof of is if this performance is repeatable. Whether we are okay or not with its irrepeatability is a different one from balance. Let me get this right. So until Maru, arguably the best Terran in the world, possibly the best player in the world, starts to have a less than 50-50 record against someone like Tassadar, we can't judge the game to be imbalanced? Please tell me your position is not reducible to that. I'm saying that we can't use evidence for things it does not show causation to. Maru is is able to stay in the top ranks of the GSL. That means that it is possible to play terran in the top ranks of the GSL. The top terran players have about a 50% winrate vs top protoss players--that means (by definition) that top level TvP is balanced. Just because its balanced does not mean it isn't problematic. Patches can be introduced to fix things that aren't imbalanced but are problematic. The reason I say this is because a lot of players conflate lack of Terran representation with winrate imbalance when they are not the same things. They usually show correlation, but they don't causate. Once again, its about statistics. Terran has an overall 50% winrate against Protoss. They also have a lack of representation. Right now, people want to attribute the lack of representation to be caused by imbalance. But there is no proof of that. Lack of representation, combined with with even winrates in top level play, suggests that the problem is ability to execute strategies. Either Protoss Strategies are too easy to execute, or Terran strategies are too difficult to execute. And that is assuming the lack of terran representation is correlated to high level of protoss representation. Zerg might be kicking terrans out, out of game problems that strangely affects terrans more ("wrist issues"), etc... But you can't blame imbalance when there's a 50/50 winrate. Lol, using your theory, we can't ever talk about imbalance at all. Why are you using Maru, he is the best terran in the world but hardly 'perfect'. True imbalance by your definition can only be achieved when both players playing perfectly which has never and will never happen. Even back in the 1-1-1 days, I can go to any 1-1-1 game and point out where the protoss made a mistake. And even your last point, the difficulty of execution IS part of balance. When most people talk about balance at the top level, it probably means if you have the top 10-20 of each race play each other, you get a close to 50/50 win rate. Um, using my theory, we would only be able to discuss things we have evidence for. The goal is not whether two hypothetical players play perfectly, the goal is to be able to see if we have empirical data that shows fairness in a given matchup. Top terran players are even with top protoss players. There just also happens to be more protoss players than terran players. However, Maru's personal skills does not hinge on how many *other* terrans are nearby him. A player's personal skill is separate from the number of people in the sub-population he is in. We know the skill of top players are even--hence the game is balanced. We also know that there is a discrepency in population sizes--this is a separate issue that *might* tie to balance, but not necessarily. hence why you can't just say its an imbalance. Only talk about what you have evidence to talk about. What? That doesn't make sense what's so ever. Even if no terrans were in the top 100 players in the world, you could make the same claim. There can never be any 100% absolutely correct evidence for imbalance. It is always POSSIBLE that the 100 best players just happen to play protoss and zerg, no? Maru having 50%+ TvP isn't any 'evidence', it *might* just be that protoss players just play worse against him. You can't 100% prove that is not the case. My balance definition: Over a long period of time race participation in pro tournaments is even, and winrates are 50/50 in all MU. Let's play through a scenario: 1. The game is perfectly balanced according to my definition. 2. One race is buffed. 3. Winrates will favor the buffed race over a certain amount of time. 4. Winrates will return to 50/50 but the buffed race will be over represented. Looking at winrates alone can be miss-leading if you already reached stage 4.
But the problem with this logic is that you are assuming race selection directly correlates to winrates.
If Blizzard promised blowjobs for every terran player race representation would spike up despite the lack of a patch. If terran wins were given bigger prize pools than protoss wins, that would also raise race selection to fix race representation.
Players may also pick one race over another for many other factors such as health (carpel tunnel patterns amongst the terran population is real), aesthetic (michael bay loves his lazers and explosions, so do his fans, Protoss does have a lot of lazers), etc...
There are many reason why players choose the races they choose and depending on the accumulation of those factors lead to a racial preference that is not necessarily balanced. Winrate is not the only thing that causes race selection, which is what is bothersome about assuming race representation is directly tied to winrate. Its one of many factors, we have to have proof that its the one that is specifically causing this specific shift.
|
On May 04 2014 23:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2014 22:50 submarine wrote:On May 04 2014 19:21 vthree wrote:On May 04 2014 16:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 15:11 vthree wrote:On May 04 2014 12:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 10:47 pure.Wasted wrote:On May 04 2014 10:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 09:48 pure.Wasted wrote:On May 04 2014 09:20 Whitewing wrote:
[quote]
Not really, it's a sign that one race is harder to play than the other. If the best terran can go 50/50 against the best toss, that's balance, and everything else is irrelevant. So whether the game is balanced or not depends on the players who are playing it? If that's not the most useless definition of the word 'balance' I've ever encountered, I don't know what is. What if Maru and Polt stop playing SC2 tomorrow, suddenly TvP takes a huge dive because no one else can mechanically reproduce their success, and, what? The game is now imbalanced because it went from 50/50 to 55/45 based on two top 5 players disappearing? That's a joke if ever there was one. What if we make Terran even harder to play mechanically than it is now, so that there are zero Terrans in Code S. There's still the chance that if a good enough player comes along to play Terran, like, five times better than Maru is now, he'll slaughter everyone... so... I guess the game would still be potentially imbalanced in Terran's favor, in some absurd and clearly useless meaning of the words? A balanced MU is one where Hypothetical Player playing Race A can play his mirror universe twin who plays Race B and they will come out at 50/50 over any long-enough stretch. That is balance. Very simple. Objectively immeasurable because there are no mirror universe twins who have been playing different races for the exact same period of time, but subjectively very measurable because we have brains that are capable of entertaining hypothetical scenarios. Like here's a hypothetical scenario, MVP.Tails starts playing Terran. He's never heard from again for as long as he lives. That's not balance.Options are a buff. If terran can go mech and have it be equally as effective as bio, then that's a buff because protoss builds and strategies need to take that into account. That limits protoss, which is a buff. Please show me the Terran who has said that, if Terran gets new options and they are too strong for Protoss to handle, shifting the balance completely in Terran's favor, we are against a Protoss buff. Cart before the horse. If we have evidence that a matchup can be 50:50 and is being executed as such--we don't ignore that data. If Maru and Polt never existed, and we have 0 players in top ranks, then you can make the hypothesis (based on evidence at hand) that Terran cannot beat Protoss. Right now we have empirical proof that Terrans can beat protoss consistently, some terrans at least. What we don't have proof of is if this performance is repeatable. Whether we are okay or not with its irrepeatability is a different one from balance. Let me get this right. So until Maru, arguably the best Terran in the world, possibly the best player in the world, starts to have a less than 50-50 record against someone like Tassadar, we can't judge the game to be imbalanced? Please tell me your position is not reducible to that. I'm saying that we can't use evidence for things it does not show causation to. Maru is is able to stay in the top ranks of the GSL. That means that it is possible to play terran in the top ranks of the GSL. The top terran players have about a 50% winrate vs top protoss players--that means (by definition) that top level TvP is balanced. Just because its balanced does not mean it isn't problematic. Patches can be introduced to fix things that aren't imbalanced but are problematic. The reason I say this is because a lot of players conflate lack of Terran representation with winrate imbalance when they are not the same things. They usually show correlation, but they don't causate. Once again, its about statistics. Terran has an overall 50% winrate against Protoss. They also have a lack of representation. Right now, people want to attribute the lack of representation to be caused by imbalance. But there is no proof of that. Lack of representation, combined with with even winrates in top level play, suggests that the problem is ability to execute strategies. Either Protoss Strategies are too easy to execute, or Terran strategies are too difficult to execute. And that is assuming the lack of terran representation is correlated to high level of protoss representation. Zerg might be kicking terrans out, out of game problems that strangely affects terrans more ("wrist issues"), etc... But you can't blame imbalance when there's a 50/50 winrate. Lol, using your theory, we can't ever talk about imbalance at all. Why are you using Maru, he is the best terran in the world but hardly 'perfect'. True imbalance by your definition can only be achieved when both players playing perfectly which has never and will never happen. Even back in the 1-1-1 days, I can go to any 1-1-1 game and point out where the protoss made a mistake. And even your last point, the difficulty of execution IS part of balance. When most people talk about balance at the top level, it probably means if you have the top 10-20 of each race play each other, you get a close to 50/50 win rate. Um, using my theory, we would only be able to discuss things we have evidence for. The goal is not whether two hypothetical players play perfectly, the goal is to be able to see if we have empirical data that shows fairness in a given matchup. Top terran players are even with top protoss players. There just also happens to be more protoss players than terran players. However, Maru's personal skills does not hinge on how many *other* terrans are nearby him. A player's personal skill is separate from the number of people in the sub-population he is in. We know the skill of top players are even--hence the game is balanced. We also know that there is a discrepency in population sizes--this is a separate issue that *might* tie to balance, but not necessarily. hence why you can't just say its an imbalance. Only talk about what you have evidence to talk about. What? That doesn't make sense what's so ever. Even if no terrans were in the top 100 players in the world, you could make the same claim. There can never be any 100% absolutely correct evidence for imbalance. It is always POSSIBLE that the 100 best players just happen to play protoss and zerg, no? Maru having 50%+ TvP isn't any 'evidence', it *might* just be that protoss players just play worse against him. You can't 100% prove that is not the case. My balance definition: Over a long period of time race participation in pro tournaments is even, and winrates are 50/50 in all MU. Let's play through a scenario: 1. The game is perfectly balanced according to my definition. 2. One race is buffed. 3. Winrates will favor the buffed race over a certain amount of time. 4. Winrates will return to 50/50 but the buffed race will be over represented. Looking at winrates alone can be miss-leading if you already reached stage 4. But the problem with this logic is that you are assuming race selection directly correlates to winrates. If Blizzard promised blowjobs for every terran player race representation would spike up despite the lack of a patch. If terran wins were given bigger prize pools than protoss wins, that would also raise race selection to fix race representation. Players may also pick one race over another for many other factors such as health (carpel tunnel patterns amongst the terran population is real), aesthetic (michael bay loves his lazers and explosions, so do his fans, Protoss does have a lot of lazers), etc... There are many reason why players choose the races they choose and depending on the accumulation of those factors lead to a racial preference that is not necessarily balanced. Winrate is not the only thing that causes race selection, which is what is bothersome about assuming race representation is directly tied to winrate. Its one of many factors, we have to have proof that its the one that is specifically causing this specific shift.
Why are you talking about race selection when the amount of players is roughly equal for each race anyway?
|
On May 04 2014 23:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2014 22:50 submarine wrote:On May 04 2014 19:21 vthree wrote:On May 04 2014 16:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 15:11 vthree wrote:On May 04 2014 12:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 10:47 pure.Wasted wrote:On May 04 2014 10:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 09:48 pure.Wasted wrote:On May 04 2014 09:20 Whitewing wrote:
[quote]
Not really, it's a sign that one race is harder to play than the other. If the best terran can go 50/50 against the best toss, that's balance, and everything else is irrelevant. So whether the game is balanced or not depends on the players who are playing it? If that's not the most useless definition of the word 'balance' I've ever encountered, I don't know what is. What if Maru and Polt stop playing SC2 tomorrow, suddenly TvP takes a huge dive because no one else can mechanically reproduce their success, and, what? The game is now imbalanced because it went from 50/50 to 55/45 based on two top 5 players disappearing? That's a joke if ever there was one. What if we make Terran even harder to play mechanically than it is now, so that there are zero Terrans in Code S. There's still the chance that if a good enough player comes along to play Terran, like, five times better than Maru is now, he'll slaughter everyone... so... I guess the game would still be potentially imbalanced in Terran's favor, in some absurd and clearly useless meaning of the words? A balanced MU is one where Hypothetical Player playing Race A can play his mirror universe twin who plays Race B and they will come out at 50/50 over any long-enough stretch. That is balance. Very simple. Objectively immeasurable because there are no mirror universe twins who have been playing different races for the exact same period of time, but subjectively very measurable because we have brains that are capable of entertaining hypothetical scenarios. Like here's a hypothetical scenario, MVP.Tails starts playing Terran. He's never heard from again for as long as he lives. That's not balance.Options are a buff. If terran can go mech and have it be equally as effective as bio, then that's a buff because protoss builds and strategies need to take that into account. That limits protoss, which is a buff. Please show me the Terran who has said that, if Terran gets new options and they are too strong for Protoss to handle, shifting the balance completely in Terran's favor, we are against a Protoss buff. Cart before the horse. If we have evidence that a matchup can be 50:50 and is being executed as such--we don't ignore that data. If Maru and Polt never existed, and we have 0 players in top ranks, then you can make the hypothesis (based on evidence at hand) that Terran cannot beat Protoss. Right now we have empirical proof that Terrans can beat protoss consistently, some terrans at least. What we don't have proof of is if this performance is repeatable. Whether we are okay or not with its irrepeatability is a different one from balance. Let me get this right. So until Maru, arguably the best Terran in the world, possibly the best player in the world, starts to have a less than 50-50 record against someone like Tassadar, we can't judge the game to be imbalanced? Please tell me your position is not reducible to that. I'm saying that we can't use evidence for things it does not show causation to. Maru is is able to stay in the top ranks of the GSL. That means that it is possible to play terran in the top ranks of the GSL. The top terran players have about a 50% winrate vs top protoss players--that means (by definition) that top level TvP is balanced. Just because its balanced does not mean it isn't problematic. Patches can be introduced to fix things that aren't imbalanced but are problematic. The reason I say this is because a lot of players conflate lack of Terran representation with winrate imbalance when they are not the same things. They usually show correlation, but they don't causate. Once again, its about statistics. Terran has an overall 50% winrate against Protoss. They also have a lack of representation. Right now, people want to attribute the lack of representation to be caused by imbalance. But there is no proof of that. Lack of representation, combined with with even winrates in top level play, suggests that the problem is ability to execute strategies. Either Protoss Strategies are too easy to execute, or Terran strategies are too difficult to execute. And that is assuming the lack of terran representation is correlated to high level of protoss representation. Zerg might be kicking terrans out, out of game problems that strangely affects terrans more ("wrist issues"), etc... But you can't blame imbalance when there's a 50/50 winrate. Lol, using your theory, we can't ever talk about imbalance at all. Why are you using Maru, he is the best terran in the world but hardly 'perfect'. True imbalance by your definition can only be achieved when both players playing perfectly which has never and will never happen. Even back in the 1-1-1 days, I can go to any 1-1-1 game and point out where the protoss made a mistake. And even your last point, the difficulty of execution IS part of balance. When most people talk about balance at the top level, it probably means if you have the top 10-20 of each race play each other, you get a close to 50/50 win rate. Um, using my theory, we would only be able to discuss things we have evidence for. The goal is not whether two hypothetical players play perfectly, the goal is to be able to see if we have empirical data that shows fairness in a given matchup. Top terran players are even with top protoss players. There just also happens to be more protoss players than terran players. However, Maru's personal skills does not hinge on how many *other* terrans are nearby him. A player's personal skill is separate from the number of people in the sub-population he is in. We know the skill of top players are even--hence the game is balanced. We also know that there is a discrepency in population sizes--this is a separate issue that *might* tie to balance, but not necessarily. hence why you can't just say its an imbalance. Only talk about what you have evidence to talk about. What? That doesn't make sense what's so ever. Even if no terrans were in the top 100 players in the world, you could make the same claim. There can never be any 100% absolutely correct evidence for imbalance. It is always POSSIBLE that the 100 best players just happen to play protoss and zerg, no? Maru having 50%+ TvP isn't any 'evidence', it *might* just be that protoss players just play worse against him. You can't 100% prove that is not the case. My balance definition: Over a long period of time race participation in pro tournaments is even, and winrates are 50/50 in all MU. Let's play through a scenario: 1. The game is perfectly balanced according to my definition. 2. One race is buffed. 3. Winrates will favor the buffed race over a certain amount of time. 4. Winrates will return to 50/50 but the buffed race will be over represented. Looking at winrates alone can be miss-leading if you already reached stage 4. But the problem with this logic is that you are assuming race selection directly correlates to winrates. If Blizzard promised blowjobs for every terran player race representation would spike up despite the lack of a patch. If terran wins were given bigger prize pools than protoss wins, that would also raise race selection to fix race representation. Players may also pick one race over another for many other factors such as health (carpel tunnel patterns amongst the terran population is real), aesthetic (michael bay loves his lazers and explosions, so do his fans, Protoss does have a lot of lazers), etc... There are many reason why players choose the races they choose and depending on the accumulation of those factors lead to a racial preference that is not necessarily balanced. Winrate is not the only thing that causes race selection, which is what is bothersome about assuming race representation is directly tied to winrate. Its one of many factors, we have to have proof that its the one that is specifically causing this specific shift.
You still do not understand that even if there was 10x times Terran players playing the game than the other races, and none of them even could make it into Master League due to Terran being to bad of a race - we would still have 50/50 balance after a while due to the match-making system?
What in that is it that you dont understand? 
It is impossible to lean against 50/50 statistics since the stats will always go towards that number.
Do you understand that or not? That is a simple Yes or No question.
Would be nice to understand if you understand that to understand if it even is worth bothering answering to you anymore :S
|
On May 05 2014 00:12 Glorfindel! wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2014 23:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 22:50 submarine wrote:On May 04 2014 19:21 vthree wrote:On May 04 2014 16:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 15:11 vthree wrote:On May 04 2014 12:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 10:47 pure.Wasted wrote:On May 04 2014 10:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 09:48 pure.Wasted wrote:
[quote]
So whether the game is balanced or not depends on the players who are playing it? If that's not the most useless definition of the word 'balance' I've ever encountered, I don't know what is. What if Maru and Polt stop playing SC2 tomorrow, suddenly TvP takes a huge dive because no one else can mechanically reproduce their success, and, what? The game is now imbalanced because it went from 50/50 to 55/45 based on two top 5 players disappearing? That's a joke if ever there was one.
What if we make Terran even harder to play mechanically than it is now, so that there are zero Terrans in Code S. There's still the chance that if a good enough player comes along to play Terran, like, five times better than Maru is now, he'll slaughter everyone... so... I guess the game would still be potentially imbalanced in Terran's favor, in some absurd and clearly useless meaning of the words?
A balanced MU is one where Hypothetical Player playing Race A can play his mirror universe twin who plays Race B and they will come out at 50/50 over any long-enough stretch. That is balance. Very simple. Objectively immeasurable because there are no mirror universe twins who have been playing different races for the exact same period of time, but subjectively very measurable because we have brains that are capable of entertaining hypothetical scenarios.
Like here's a hypothetical scenario, MVP.Tails starts playing Terran. He's never heard from again for as long as he lives. That's not balance.
[quote]
Please show me the Terran who has said that, if Terran gets new options and they are too strong for Protoss to handle, shifting the balance completely in Terran's favor, we are against a Protoss buff.
Cart before the horse. If we have evidence that a matchup can be 50:50 and is being executed as such--we don't ignore that data. If Maru and Polt never existed, and we have 0 players in top ranks, then you can make the hypothesis (based on evidence at hand) that Terran cannot beat Protoss. Right now we have empirical proof that Terrans can beat protoss consistently, some terrans at least. What we don't have proof of is if this performance is repeatable. Whether we are okay or not with its irrepeatability is a different one from balance. Let me get this right. So until Maru, arguably the best Terran in the world, possibly the best player in the world, starts to have a less than 50-50 record against someone like Tassadar, we can't judge the game to be imbalanced? Please tell me your position is not reducible to that. I'm saying that we can't use evidence for things it does not show causation to. Maru is is able to stay in the top ranks of the GSL. That means that it is possible to play terran in the top ranks of the GSL. The top terran players have about a 50% winrate vs top protoss players--that means (by definition) that top level TvP is balanced. Just because its balanced does not mean it isn't problematic. Patches can be introduced to fix things that aren't imbalanced but are problematic. The reason I say this is because a lot of players conflate lack of Terran representation with winrate imbalance when they are not the same things. They usually show correlation, but they don't causate. Once again, its about statistics. Terran has an overall 50% winrate against Protoss. They also have a lack of representation. Right now, people want to attribute the lack of representation to be caused by imbalance. But there is no proof of that. Lack of representation, combined with with even winrates in top level play, suggests that the problem is ability to execute strategies. Either Protoss Strategies are too easy to execute, or Terran strategies are too difficult to execute. And that is assuming the lack of terran representation is correlated to high level of protoss representation. Zerg might be kicking terrans out, out of game problems that strangely affects terrans more ("wrist issues"), etc... But you can't blame imbalance when there's a 50/50 winrate. Lol, using your theory, we can't ever talk about imbalance at all. Why are you using Maru, he is the best terran in the world but hardly 'perfect'. True imbalance by your definition can only be achieved when both players playing perfectly which has never and will never happen. Even back in the 1-1-1 days, I can go to any 1-1-1 game and point out where the protoss made a mistake. And even your last point, the difficulty of execution IS part of balance. When most people talk about balance at the top level, it probably means if you have the top 10-20 of each race play each other, you get a close to 50/50 win rate. Um, using my theory, we would only be able to discuss things we have evidence for. The goal is not whether two hypothetical players play perfectly, the goal is to be able to see if we have empirical data that shows fairness in a given matchup. Top terran players are even with top protoss players. There just also happens to be more protoss players than terran players. However, Maru's personal skills does not hinge on how many *other* terrans are nearby him. A player's personal skill is separate from the number of people in the sub-population he is in. We know the skill of top players are even--hence the game is balanced. We also know that there is a discrepency in population sizes--this is a separate issue that *might* tie to balance, but not necessarily. hence why you can't just say its an imbalance. Only talk about what you have evidence to talk about. What? That doesn't make sense what's so ever. Even if no terrans were in the top 100 players in the world, you could make the same claim. There can never be any 100% absolutely correct evidence for imbalance. It is always POSSIBLE that the 100 best players just happen to play protoss and zerg, no? Maru having 50%+ TvP isn't any 'evidence', it *might* just be that protoss players just play worse against him. You can't 100% prove that is not the case. My balance definition: Over a long period of time race participation in pro tournaments is even, and winrates are 50/50 in all MU. Let's play through a scenario: 1. The game is perfectly balanced according to my definition. 2. One race is buffed. 3. Winrates will favor the buffed race over a certain amount of time. 4. Winrates will return to 50/50 but the buffed race will be over represented. Looking at winrates alone can be miss-leading if you already reached stage 4. But the problem with this logic is that you are assuming race selection directly correlates to winrates. If Blizzard promised blowjobs for every terran player race representation would spike up despite the lack of a patch. If terran wins were given bigger prize pools than protoss wins, that would also raise race selection to fix race representation. Players may also pick one race over another for many other factors such as health (carpel tunnel patterns amongst the terran population is real), aesthetic (michael bay loves his lazers and explosions, so do his fans, Protoss does have a lot of lazers), etc... There are many reason why players choose the races they choose and depending on the accumulation of those factors lead to a racial preference that is not necessarily balanced. Winrate is not the only thing that causes race selection, which is what is bothersome about assuming race representation is directly tied to winrate. Its one of many factors, we have to have proof that its the one that is specifically causing this specific shift. You still do not understand that even if there was 10x times Terran players playing the game than the other races, and none of them even could make it into Master League due to Terran being to bad of a race - we would still have 50/50 balance after a while due to the match-making system? What in that is it that you dont understand? It is impossible to lean against 50/50 statistics since the stats will always go towards that number. Do you understand that or not? That is a simple Yes or No question. Would be nice to understand if you understand that to understand if it even is worth bothering answering to you anymore :S
The same part wherein I said we can't use anecdotal evidence (friends) or the ladder to determine balance and hence have to lean on tournament reports--which do not have a forced 50/50 winrate.
|
On May 04 2014 23:36 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2014 23:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 22:50 submarine wrote:On May 04 2014 19:21 vthree wrote:On May 04 2014 16:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 15:11 vthree wrote:On May 04 2014 12:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 10:47 pure.Wasted wrote:On May 04 2014 10:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 09:48 pure.Wasted wrote:
[quote]
So whether the game is balanced or not depends on the players who are playing it? If that's not the most useless definition of the word 'balance' I've ever encountered, I don't know what is. What if Maru and Polt stop playing SC2 tomorrow, suddenly TvP takes a huge dive because no one else can mechanically reproduce their success, and, what? The game is now imbalanced because it went from 50/50 to 55/45 based on two top 5 players disappearing? That's a joke if ever there was one.
What if we make Terran even harder to play mechanically than it is now, so that there are zero Terrans in Code S. There's still the chance that if a good enough player comes along to play Terran, like, five times better than Maru is now, he'll slaughter everyone... so... I guess the game would still be potentially imbalanced in Terran's favor, in some absurd and clearly useless meaning of the words?
A balanced MU is one where Hypothetical Player playing Race A can play his mirror universe twin who plays Race B and they will come out at 50/50 over any long-enough stretch. That is balance. Very simple. Objectively immeasurable because there are no mirror universe twins who have been playing different races for the exact same period of time, but subjectively very measurable because we have brains that are capable of entertaining hypothetical scenarios.
Like here's a hypothetical scenario, MVP.Tails starts playing Terran. He's never heard from again for as long as he lives. That's not balance.
[quote]
Please show me the Terran who has said that, if Terran gets new options and they are too strong for Protoss to handle, shifting the balance completely in Terran's favor, we are against a Protoss buff.
Cart before the horse. If we have evidence that a matchup can be 50:50 and is being executed as such--we don't ignore that data. If Maru and Polt never existed, and we have 0 players in top ranks, then you can make the hypothesis (based on evidence at hand) that Terran cannot beat Protoss. Right now we have empirical proof that Terrans can beat protoss consistently, some terrans at least. What we don't have proof of is if this performance is repeatable. Whether we are okay or not with its irrepeatability is a different one from balance. Let me get this right. So until Maru, arguably the best Terran in the world, possibly the best player in the world, starts to have a less than 50-50 record against someone like Tassadar, we can't judge the game to be imbalanced? Please tell me your position is not reducible to that. I'm saying that we can't use evidence for things it does not show causation to. Maru is is able to stay in the top ranks of the GSL. That means that it is possible to play terran in the top ranks of the GSL. The top terran players have about a 50% winrate vs top protoss players--that means (by definition) that top level TvP is balanced. Just because its balanced does not mean it isn't problematic. Patches can be introduced to fix things that aren't imbalanced but are problematic. The reason I say this is because a lot of players conflate lack of Terran representation with winrate imbalance when they are not the same things. They usually show correlation, but they don't causate. Once again, its about statistics. Terran has an overall 50% winrate against Protoss. They also have a lack of representation. Right now, people want to attribute the lack of representation to be caused by imbalance. But there is no proof of that. Lack of representation, combined with with even winrates in top level play, suggests that the problem is ability to execute strategies. Either Protoss Strategies are too easy to execute, or Terran strategies are too difficult to execute. And that is assuming the lack of terran representation is correlated to high level of protoss representation. Zerg might be kicking terrans out, out of game problems that strangely affects terrans more ("wrist issues"), etc... But you can't blame imbalance when there's a 50/50 winrate. Lol, using your theory, we can't ever talk about imbalance at all. Why are you using Maru, he is the best terran in the world but hardly 'perfect'. True imbalance by your definition can only be achieved when both players playing perfectly which has never and will never happen. Even back in the 1-1-1 days, I can go to any 1-1-1 game and point out where the protoss made a mistake. And even your last point, the difficulty of execution IS part of balance. When most people talk about balance at the top level, it probably means if you have the top 10-20 of each race play each other, you get a close to 50/50 win rate. Um, using my theory, we would only be able to discuss things we have evidence for. The goal is not whether two hypothetical players play perfectly, the goal is to be able to see if we have empirical data that shows fairness in a given matchup. Top terran players are even with top protoss players. There just also happens to be more protoss players than terran players. However, Maru's personal skills does not hinge on how many *other* terrans are nearby him. A player's personal skill is separate from the number of people in the sub-population he is in. We know the skill of top players are even--hence the game is balanced. We also know that there is a discrepency in population sizes--this is a separate issue that *might* tie to balance, but not necessarily. hence why you can't just say its an imbalance. Only talk about what you have evidence to talk about. What? That doesn't make sense what's so ever. Even if no terrans were in the top 100 players in the world, you could make the same claim. There can never be any 100% absolutely correct evidence for imbalance. It is always POSSIBLE that the 100 best players just happen to play protoss and zerg, no? Maru having 50%+ TvP isn't any 'evidence', it *might* just be that protoss players just play worse against him. You can't 100% prove that is not the case. My balance definition: Over a long period of time race participation in pro tournaments is even, and winrates are 50/50 in all MU. Let's play through a scenario: 1. The game is perfectly balanced according to my definition. 2. One race is buffed. 3. Winrates will favor the buffed race over a certain amount of time. 4. Winrates will return to 50/50 but the buffed race will be over represented. Looking at winrates alone can be miss-leading if you already reached stage 4. But the problem with this logic is that you are assuming race selection directly correlates to winrates. If Blizzard promised blowjobs for every terran player race representation would spike up despite the lack of a patch. If terran wins were given bigger prize pools than protoss wins, that would also raise race selection to fix race representation. Players may also pick one race over another for many other factors such as health (carpel tunnel patterns amongst the terran population is real), aesthetic (michael bay loves his lazers and explosions, so do his fans, Protoss does have a lot of lazers), etc... There are many reason why players choose the races they choose and depending on the accumulation of those factors lead to a racial preference that is not necessarily balanced. Winrate is not the only thing that causes race selection, which is what is bothersome about assuming race representation is directly tied to winrate. Its one of many factors, we have to have proof that its the one that is specifically causing this specific shift. Why are you talking about race selection when the amount of players is roughly equal for each race anyway?
Are you talking about the ladder or are you talking about high end tournaments?
|
On May 05 2014 00:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2014 23:36 TheDwf wrote:On May 04 2014 23:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 22:50 submarine wrote:On May 04 2014 19:21 vthree wrote:On May 04 2014 16:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 15:11 vthree wrote:On May 04 2014 12:08 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 04 2014 10:47 pure.Wasted wrote:On May 04 2014 10:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Cart before the horse.
If we have evidence that a matchup can be 50:50 and is being executed as such--we don't ignore that data.
If Maru and Polt never existed, and we have 0 players in top ranks, then you can make the hypothesis (based on evidence at hand) that Terran cannot beat Protoss.
Right now we have empirical proof that Terrans can beat protoss consistently, some terrans at least. What we don't have proof of is if this performance is repeatable. Whether we are okay or not with its irrepeatability is a different one from balance. Let me get this right. So until Maru, arguably the best Terran in the world, possibly the best player in the world, starts to have a less than 50-50 record against someone like Tassadar, we can't judge the game to be imbalanced? Please tell me your position is not reducible to that. I'm saying that we can't use evidence for things it does not show causation to. Maru is is able to stay in the top ranks of the GSL. That means that it is possible to play terran in the top ranks of the GSL. The top terran players have about a 50% winrate vs top protoss players--that means (by definition) that top level TvP is balanced. Just because its balanced does not mean it isn't problematic. Patches can be introduced to fix things that aren't imbalanced but are problematic. The reason I say this is because a lot of players conflate lack of Terran representation with winrate imbalance when they are not the same things. They usually show correlation, but they don't causate. Once again, its about statistics. Terran has an overall 50% winrate against Protoss. They also have a lack of representation. Right now, people want to attribute the lack of representation to be caused by imbalance. But there is no proof of that. Lack of representation, combined with with even winrates in top level play, suggests that the problem is ability to execute strategies. Either Protoss Strategies are too easy to execute, or Terran strategies are too difficult to execute. And that is assuming the lack of terran representation is correlated to high level of protoss representation. Zerg might be kicking terrans out, out of game problems that strangely affects terrans more ("wrist issues"), etc... But you can't blame imbalance when there's a 50/50 winrate. Lol, using your theory, we can't ever talk about imbalance at all. Why are you using Maru, he is the best terran in the world but hardly 'perfect'. True imbalance by your definition can only be achieved when both players playing perfectly which has never and will never happen. Even back in the 1-1-1 days, I can go to any 1-1-1 game and point out where the protoss made a mistake. And even your last point, the difficulty of execution IS part of balance. When most people talk about balance at the top level, it probably means if you have the top 10-20 of each race play each other, you get a close to 50/50 win rate. Um, using my theory, we would only be able to discuss things we have evidence for. The goal is not whether two hypothetical players play perfectly, the goal is to be able to see if we have empirical data that shows fairness in a given matchup. Top terran players are even with top protoss players. There just also happens to be more protoss players than terran players. However, Maru's personal skills does not hinge on how many *other* terrans are nearby him. A player's personal skill is separate from the number of people in the sub-population he is in. We know the skill of top players are even--hence the game is balanced. We also know that there is a discrepency in population sizes--this is a separate issue that *might* tie to balance, but not necessarily. hence why you can't just say its an imbalance. Only talk about what you have evidence to talk about. What? That doesn't make sense what's so ever. Even if no terrans were in the top 100 players in the world, you could make the same claim. There can never be any 100% absolutely correct evidence for imbalance. It is always POSSIBLE that the 100 best players just happen to play protoss and zerg, no? Maru having 50%+ TvP isn't any 'evidence', it *might* just be that protoss players just play worse against him. You can't 100% prove that is not the case. My balance definition: Over a long period of time race participation in pro tournaments is even, and winrates are 50/50 in all MU. Let's play through a scenario: 1. The game is perfectly balanced according to my definition. 2. One race is buffed. 3. Winrates will favor the buffed race over a certain amount of time. 4. Winrates will return to 50/50 but the buffed race will be over represented. Looking at winrates alone can be miss-leading if you already reached stage 4. But the problem with this logic is that you are assuming race selection directly correlates to winrates. If Blizzard promised blowjobs for every terran player race representation would spike up despite the lack of a patch. If terran wins were given bigger prize pools than protoss wins, that would also raise race selection to fix race representation. Players may also pick one race over another for many other factors such as health (carpel tunnel patterns amongst the terran population is real), aesthetic (michael bay loves his lazers and explosions, so do his fans, Protoss does have a lot of lazers), etc... There are many reason why players choose the races they choose and depending on the accumulation of those factors lead to a racial preference that is not necessarily balanced. Winrate is not the only thing that causes race selection, which is what is bothersome about assuming race representation is directly tied to winrate. Its one of many factors, we have to have proof that its the one that is specifically causing this specific shift. Why are you talking about race selection when the amount of players is roughly equal for each race anyway? Are you talking about the ladder or are you talking about high end tournaments?
Ladder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
