|
On September 22 2011 06:26 YumYumGranola wrote:
It's also clear people are only reading the last paragraph T_T
I read the whole thing and I can't understand what you're trying to get at with this thread. It's kind of a no brainer that the game should be balanced around perfect play. Not one player yet does everything they should. Serious balance discussions should be accompanied by replays. If you look close at a lot of games, there will always be something that the player can improve upon. This game requires a lot of speed just to make things and not die let alone incorporating grand strategies to get around whatever the flavor of the month balance whine.
|
Balancing for lower levels?
You mean listen to balance qq from people who actually dont have a clue about how you should be playing the game correctly ? (i'm talking here about the basics, not the code S caliber play)
|
On September 22 2011 06:23 alepov wrote:
Creating different rules for different leagues will interfere with the whole learning curve. Awful idea.
This.
Most people play to improve so they can be good at the next level, not "hey ill play in Gold then relearn it in Platinum."
|
On September 22 2011 06:36 Doodsmack wrote:
What's an example of an SC2 balance change that was targeted at the lower leagues and had a negative effect on professional play?
It wouldn't impact it, but it would also be a giant waste of time, there isn't great balance at lower levels because lower level players are awful. Improve and with that comes balance.
|
if the game is balanced at the highest level, IT IS BALANCED. plain and simple.
yes, it is frustrating that one person might be able to do better with a race than their skill might suggest, but so long as all races have equal chance of winning when played perfectly, the game is exactly how it should be.
|
United States5162 Posts
On September 22 2011 06:33 Roxy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 06:31 Shaetan wrote:On September 22 2011 06:29 YumYumGranola wrote:On September 22 2011 06:27 Shaetan wrote:On September 22 2011 06:18 YumYumGranola wrote:
the fact is that almost every single spectator of SC2 events is also a player. If there's anything that dissuades new players it has a negative affect on new spectators which hurts the feasibility foreign tournaments and therefore the entire foreign scene. This is not true. Well I certainly don't know any... Well then by jove it must be true! I think it is more reasonable to assume that most SC2 viewers are also players than it is to assume that most are not players How would someone understand the game if they do not play it? Do you regularly view anything you dont understand?
You don't need to play something to understand it. Most women I know never played American football, but they understand it just fine if they're at all interested in it.
|
I'd much rather have low leagues severely imbalanced and have somewhat equal representation in esports, akin to brood war (the perfectly balanced rts). Imagine equal representation and perfect 50% winrates for all races at gold, but 95% of pro games are played by protoss. That's completely awful, and while our current state of the game is skewed towards terran, other races have shown that it's still possible to beat everything that top terrans have thrown out at one point or another.
|
On September 22 2011 06:32 FiWiFaKi wrote:
I did play BW and I played terran.
Now I was D for a long time and TvP was very difficult, from holding reaver drops and DTs, to just surviving while taking your expansion. Being D is equivalent to High Diamond/Low master, atleast it was two years ago.
Terran had it hard, and I do think it's important to make sure one race isn't just 1a'ing and the other race needs perfect micro to be on even ground. That was the ncie thing about BW, the competition against abilities and micro, they both had a high skill cap, instead of one person watching and one person working his ass off doing perfect macro.
Don't balance for platinum or lower because well, it's silly to do, at that point players play so poorly that a 50% handicap can make them lose games. But I do agree that diamond level players as well as the average masters should have pretty even balance. And right now I don't think it's much of a problem, maybe protoss is a bit stronger when both players have poor multitasking but I dont see any problems.
I'm glad you gave us a concrete example to work with. Whenever I read things like this though I hear 'I want to play worse than my opponent and still win'.
Your P opponents did reaver drops and you neither stopped them nor did counter harass of your own and you still wanted to win? When you played as P did you do reaver drops? Or, maybe a better question, did you NOT do reaver drops and STILL expect to win? Maybe you should have looked at the point at which Terran stopped getting demolished by reaver drops and emulated them.
The point of lower leagues is that it's full of people adding building blocks to their play. If someone has added a building block, you have to do the same or you should lose.
|
On September 22 2011 06:29 YumYumGranola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 06:27 Shaetan wrote:On September 22 2011 06:18 YumYumGranola wrote:
the fact is that almost every single spectator of SC2 events is also a player. If there's anything that dissuades new players it has a negative affect on new spectators which hurts the feasibility foreign tournaments and therefore the entire foreign scene. This is not true. Well I certainly don't know any...
Just go ask huskystarcraft...
To some extent though i do agree with you, and this is why:
For the most part, any imbalance at my level (diamond protoss) should be negligible due to the fact that there are a million and one things i can improve in my game. However, with HUGE imbalances this can sometimes still overwhelm that to the point that the fun can be taken out of playing. To use a hot topic example: In the last few weeks or so we have seen the 1-1-1 build being beaten in a decent percentages but before then, as a protoss, if an equally skilled terran used this build against you, you would lose. As it is, watch about 90% more protoss matchups than i do others, and then only because a player i like is playing or it is a final, and that is because i play protoss, so i connect with the player. If all protoss players stop playing, suddenly interest in the scene goes down by close to a third.
Obviously this is an exaggeration, but i think writing off what the OP says is a bad idea. I would like to see the game predominately balanced at the highest level, but if there is a strategy that absolutely breaks the game for low-mid level players (eg plat to low masters) then i think it should be dealt with. Afterall, players like flash haven't been playing SC from the beginning, he was born in 1992, so would have been ~6 when it came out, and if the game had been unplayable for terran when he was young i would not be surprised if he hadn't decided to stick with the game.
Basically what i am trying to say is that we shouldn't write off players who are bad now, and we shouldn't discourage people who are bad if we can do it without damaging pro play.
|
On September 22 2011 06:42 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 06:33 Roxy wrote:On September 22 2011 06:31 Shaetan wrote:On September 22 2011 06:29 YumYumGranola wrote:On September 22 2011 06:27 Shaetan wrote:On September 22 2011 06:18 YumYumGranola wrote:
the fact is that almost every single spectator of SC2 events is also a player. If there's anything that dissuades new players it has a negative affect on new spectators which hurts the feasibility foreign tournaments and therefore the entire foreign scene. This is not true. Well I certainly don't know any... Well then by jove it must be true! I think it is more reasonable to assume that most SC2 viewers are also players than it is to assume that most are not players How would someone understand the game if they do not play it? Do you regularly view anything you dont understand? You don't need to play something to understand it. Most women I know never played American football, but they understand it just fine if they're at all interested in it.
I'm not saying that it is impossible that some spectators dont play, i'm just saying it is unlikely. Does anyone here know someone who is INTERESTED in watching starcraft 2 who has never played a game of starcraft 2?
its possible.. but I bet you that maybe it will be 1 out of 10,000 viewers
|
On September 22 2011 06:33 Roxy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 06:31 Shaetan wrote:On September 22 2011 06:29 YumYumGranola wrote:On September 22 2011 06:27 Shaetan wrote:On September 22 2011 06:18 YumYumGranola wrote:
the fact is that almost every single spectator of SC2 events is also a player. If there's anything that dissuades new players it has a negative affect on new spectators which hurts the feasibility foreign tournaments and therefore the entire foreign scene. This is not true. Well I certainly don't know any... Well then by jove it must be true! I think it is more reasonable to assume that most SC2 viewers are also players than it is to assume that most are not players How would someone understand the game if they do not play it? Do you regularly view anything you dont understand?
No I like to understand the stuff I watch but I don't have to play it to understand it. That's why I watch such diverse things as football, basketball, DOTA2, etcetc (none of which I play). The understanding can be imparted by commentators and the like.
It may be incorrect to say that viewers were not players at some point however I remember reading something that most viewers watch SC2 a lot more than they play it. The average person is much more likely to either:
A-purchase game, play it, find it's imbalanced (at their level), stop playing but maybe watch streans
or
B-watch streams, think game is awesome, buy it, find it's imbalanced (at their level), stop playing but continue watching
than
C-watch stream of imbalanced game, buy it, continue watching streams where imbalance exists
The important thing for influx of new players is balance at the highest level to ensure a sellable product.
On September 22 2011 06:34 YumYumGranola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 06:31 Shaetan wrote:On September 22 2011 06:29 YumYumGranola wrote:On September 22 2011 06:27 Shaetan wrote:On September 22 2011 06:18 YumYumGranola wrote:
the fact is that almost every single spectator of SC2 events is also a player. If there's anything that dissuades new players it has a negative affect on new spectators which hurts the feasibility foreign tournaments and therefore the entire foreign scene. This is not true. Well I certainly don't know any... Well then by jove it must be true! Lol fair enough, although you're equally guilty unless you have some knowledge or evidence that you're not declaring.
I personally know quite a few people who do not play at all but still enjoy watching, that's just as anecdotal as your evidence though so feel free to ignore it :-p
It's more accurate to say that most viewers primarily watch rather than play SC2 I suppose, I remember reading something about that but don't know where 
|
I think balance needs to be where skill is equal. The top level is a decent place to start as there, the differences in skill, feels, less apart. As a lower level (diamond player) I've rolled over masters, and I've gotten killed by platinum, there just isn't that consistency that suggest that the game can be balanced around my play. It is difficult though whether using only the top players can take out the noise in skill level.
In an age of streaming and steal that build, we are also starting to play strategy that look the same across the board. For example, if we looked at ZvP, back in the day it was roach/hydra corruptor vs deathball. Everyone did it, zergs mostly lost, but the solution was not necessarily balance, but innovation in playstyles. Nowaday, it looks like Z is winning, definitely due to the patch, but is it also that Z have been using new strategies?
I would love a world where the game is balanced with respect to pro skill level, but I think it's difficult to be certain that even at the top tier, all skill is equal.
|
On September 22 2011 06:33 Roxy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 06:31 Shaetan wrote:On September 22 2011 06:29 YumYumGranola wrote:On September 22 2011 06:27 Shaetan wrote:On September 22 2011 06:18 YumYumGranola wrote:
the fact is that almost every single spectator of SC2 events is also a player. If there's anything that dissuades new players it has a negative affect on new spectators which hurts the feasibility foreign tournaments and therefore the entire foreign scene. This is not true. Well I certainly don't know any... Well then by jove it must be true! I think it is more reasonable to assume that most SC2 viewers are also players than it is to assume that most are not players How would someone understand the game if they do not play it? Do you regularly view anything you dont understand?
Maybe they used to play it?
Or just learn and understand it simply by watching.
To be fair SC2 isn't that advanced knowledge-wise, it's mostly the decision making and mechanical skill that's hard and you can have really good game knowledge even if you're awful or not playing.
More on topic; they should of course aim to balance for the pro level, but that doesn't mean they should simply ignore lower levels, certain nerfs/buffs affects all leagues and those fixes should be a higher priority than any other.
(The recent infestor nerf is a great example, noone can say that it didn't have any effect on lower leagues.)
But to be honest I wouldn't mind them just ignoring almost everything up until the release of the last expansion, except game breaking issues (like the old 5rax reaper, or roaches being 1 supply).
I think they should just learn from this and focus on replacing units that doesn't work/works badly in both expansions and not aim for perfect balance this early because it will all break again once the expansions hit.
Like the Roach, it was originally supposed to be a tank-unit that depended on regeneration from burrow, but as it got tested more and more they had to make more and more changes and now it's a really basic and terribly boring unit.
Or Neural Parasite, it's been nerfed and buffed about ~152 times, just realize it's a terrible spell and let it be broken until you replace it in an expansion.
Fungal Growth having a root effect, it's just boring and uninteresting so instead of fine-tuning it over the course of years just replace it with something really cool.
|
On September 22 2011 06:36 Jerubaal wrote:
You picked a rather poor example I think because you're condemning a whole race as 'ezmode' instead of proving that a specific thing is 'more difficult' at a certain level. Also, I think when people consider lower league balance they try to adhere to a false notion of 'equality' instead of thinking about the effort required to improve. A common example is the dynamic you see in low league PvT where players complain about a perception of bio/gateway/colossi/vikings at varying levels of development. Do I think it's 'more difficult' for a bio terran to defeat a roboing protoss? Sure. Do I think the jump the terran has to make in order to incorporate vikings in their play is any more difficult than the jump the protoss had to make to incorporate colossi? Not really.
The reason why low league play can't really be examined for balance reasons is that if either player improved even by the smallest margin, they'd probably demolish their opponent.
The reason TvP was significantly imbalanced for Terran in BW has everything to do with the insane splash damage of Terran mech. Engaging a Toss army required seige tanks to be spread properly, and mines to be placed absolutely PERFECTLY so that they were far enough from tanks not to get dragged in and blow your whole army up but close enough that dragoons couldn't clear them before engaging your army. It was a knife-edge balance that was required to successfully engage a toss army that was "1a2a3a..." that simply doesn't exist in SC2. However when you can do it properly Terran mech is monstrous. That's why it doesn't need a buff at higher levels of play.
I was a D level Terran player. The Korean kids in our class were huge gamers, 240+APM and were in the C and into B leagues. I was able to compete as Protoss against C level Terrans. My APM was somewhere around 70 (or 40 in SC2 APM) That's the kind of difference. I'm literally talking about Silver league players beating masters league players simply because of the race they chose.
|
On September 22 2011 06:45 Roxy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 06:42 Myles wrote:On September 22 2011 06:33 Roxy wrote:On September 22 2011 06:31 Shaetan wrote:On September 22 2011 06:29 YumYumGranola wrote:On September 22 2011 06:27 Shaetan wrote:On September 22 2011 06:18 YumYumGranola wrote:
the fact is that almost every single spectator of SC2 events is also a player. If there's anything that dissuades new players it has a negative affect on new spectators which hurts the feasibility foreign tournaments and therefore the entire foreign scene. This is not true. Well I certainly don't know any... Well then by jove it must be true! I think it is more reasonable to assume that most SC2 viewers are also players than it is to assume that most are not players How would someone understand the game if they do not play it? Do you regularly view anything you dont understand? You don't need to play something to understand it. Most women I know never played American football, but they understand it just fine if they're at all interested in it. I'm not saying that it is impossible that some spectators dont play, i'm just saying it is unlikely. Does anyone here know someone who is INTERESTED in watching starcraft 2 who has never played a game of starcraft 2? its possible.. but I bet you that maybe it will be 1 out of 10,000 viewers
I can make up numbers too! I know precisely 4,376 people that fall into that category! jk
The point is that even if the spectators have played SC2, the game being imbalanced at their level does not cause them to not watch a balanced game at the professional level.
|
It wouldn't be good if for example race A relied heavily on microed units to win games, while race B didn't have any micro potential at all. Race A might still be 100% balanced with race B at pro level, but race B would be more and more dominant the further down you go from there. Not to mention few people would want to play race A. Basically one race shouldn't have a much higher skill cap and still only come level with the other. Not only will pros shift to the one with the lower skill cap that offers the same success, but that will filter down to all levels of play.
But I'm not 100% sure this problem exists in SC2 atm. Protoss is a *little* more micro intensive, Zerg is a *little* less and Terran is probably somewhere in the middle. But they all have fiddly micro unit opportunities, and unit comps that you can just 1A at your opponent with and win provided you have superior macro.
|
Also, for lower levels, there is the chance, that we are where we are, because of imbalance. Not skill. So balancing around that, doesn't necessarily work in my opinion. You might have masters terran player being in a perfectly balanced world, mid diamond, very hard to know.
At higher levels, it is probably less likely that that would be true.
|
There is no such thing as imbalance for lesser skilled players if the game is balanced at the top. It's all a l2p issue for lower skilled players.
I do get your point however, some race may take way less skill than another at lower levels of play, and that can be frustrating. I can't come up with any solution to this other than to carefully balance the skill required to play race X at lower levels of skill while not changing anything at the top. I don't think it is possible though.
A difference in skill required to play a race is not a balance issue, it is a game design issue. Balance just means that given the best of the best play currently available, all races have an equal chance of beating each other.
|
On September 22 2011 06:36 Doodsmack wrote:
What's an example of an SC2 balance change that was targeted at the lower leagues and had a negative effect on professional play?
The zealot build time increase. It prevented 2 gating from occurring in lower level PvZ, but has also obviously lowered the effectiveness of the gateway/warpgate at the highest levels. I remember at the beginning of the game, every PvZ I would 2 gate and the zerg would fumble around and lose without making a single roach. This worked all the way up to diamond before I started facing people who knew how to stop it. But it was obviously not too strong at that level and above. The question I have is why 2 gating was nerfed so hard, when 2 rax has been even stronger vs zerg and only now just got a small nerf. (rax nerf is much smaller than zealot nerf, since it only delays your build by 5 seconds once, instead of for every zealot)
And then there is void ray speed, which was destroying in low level team games, which has prevented toss from being able to innovate by making speed voids late game. Those are just a few.
|
On September 22 2011 06:43 Meta wrote:
I'd much rather have low leagues severely imbalanced and have somewhat equal representation in esports, akin to brood war (the perfectly balanced rts). Imagine equal representation and perfect 50% winrates for all races at gold, but 95% of pro games are played by protoss. That's completely awful, and while our current state of the game is skewed towards terran, other races have shown that it's still possible to beat everything that top terrans have thrown out at one point or another.
Blizzard would be crazy to go the other way with that though, IE 95% of ladder players on one race, if they want players to buy their next two expansions. Maybe years down the line when SC2 is only played by the really dedicated types and there's essentially no more revenue to be made from game sales they could decide to neglect low level balance completely. I don't think it really is an issue though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
