EPTOnly Balance for the Highest Level? - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Genie1
Canada333 Posts
| ||
|
DARKHYDRA
United States303 Posts
Balance at lower levels, completely changes things at the highest level. I'm a gold player, small changes here and there don't affect me much. I think what your trying to say is that the game should be fun at all levels which may be difficult to achieve because some races are harder to play than others so it takes more skill to get to the fun part. | ||
|
KimJongChill
United States6429 Posts
| ||
|
TheOnlyOne
Germany155 Posts
So if something takes over in lower leagues it will be Patched in a way that might "hopefully" not affect high level play ; or at least not damage it greatly. Overall Blizzard goes with the idea to nerf something so hard to take it more or less out completly if needed, and not all units are really "viable" overall (mostly T3 units) and most important some Upgrades are just retarded useless and others "must have". Yea, balance wise you "could" give each league a totally different Balance Set ; but that would just require a crap ton more work in Balance and if you go up everything would change ; thats just bad for everyone. Sc2 will for sure become a E-Sport for the "Pros" , at some point the casual players just get bored and get another game , so Balance should be for the "Pros" , if the game is in fact balanced , you will not lose because imbalances in your low league (you simply lose because of major missplays, or just pure stupid play). Its true, like someone said in first posts ; a real good player can just Macro up Workers and overwhelm a bad player with workers only ; even after 10 minutes of game time and its totally impossible for this bad players to survive any form of rush as they are not used to it. So the better players simply wins, its not about balance at all , as the low level players do not have the abilities that are simply fundamentally needed to play the game at all (i would even go as far to say that ~80% of the players still miss very fundamental parts of the game, and just a handful of players really has the passion to play a "real" match of starcraft). | ||
|
Monkeyballs25
531 Posts
If players can be beaten by a Nydus worker rush balancing the game based on what they think is fucking retarded. End of. This guy basically destroyed your whole argument. It's usually the player, not the race unless you are talking about the very highest level of play so balancing is pointless unless it's something abused in every single game.[/QUOTE] There is an enormous skill range inbetween "losing all 5 placement matches" silver level and this hypothetical perfect level gameplay Blizzard are supposed to be 100% focused on balancing for. But since they do balance for all levels of gameplay already, I'm perfectly happy. | ||
|
Flonomenalz
Nigeria3519 Posts
I LOVED the snide BW elitist remarks that were snuck in there too. "I shudder to think what a player like Flash could do in SC2" "That's why most SC2 pros are old B league BW players past their prime" I enjoy it how you think Flash could hit every single larvae inject through a game with perfect creep spread while microing his army, scouting, teching, etc. I forgot he had 700 APM. Actually, isn't Flash's APM relatively lower than most top BW pros? Hmm. | ||
|
intotheheart
Canada33091 Posts
Personally I feel that lower-level players like me shouldn't really be paid too much attention to, because it doesn't matter whether or not certain units are a little better in some contexts than others, it's the multitask, game sense, and decision-making that win and lose you games. | ||
|
dhe95
United States1213 Posts
Also, many people of all skill levels aren't qualified to talk balance (probably including me and most of the people on TL) yet a small few seem to think that they are still the smartest SC2 player in the world. | ||
|
chadissilent
Canada1187 Posts
| ||
|
spbelky
United States623 Posts
Hi Palm, nice to meet you. Let's be friends. Okay! | ||
|
Sphaero
Germany1697 Posts
Because watching baseball and SC2 are comparable. As much as you people want to tell yourself SC2 is a real sport you're very delusional. It isn´t a "real" sport, yet, atleast outside Korea, but it has potential. Enough potential, that big companies invest thousands of dollars into tournaments or teams. Even at the current state it can fill halls with thousands of people. SC II or Esport in general would not be the first niche sport, that becomes mainstream. Think back 10 or 15 years. Where were sports like Poker, Darts or Snooker back then? Some of them had a really bad rep and others were followed by only a small amount of people. Now they can entertain millions of viewer. Gaming in general will gain more respect in the coming years, because the people who will be in charge of things are the ones who grew up with playing computer games. Even now gaming exhibitions like gamescom attract hundreds of thousands of people and it keeps growing and growing. I´m not saying, that it will reach the stage of Basketball/Baseball in the US or football in Europe, but it is defenitly possible, that it will become a n acknowlegded sport. | ||
|
ChEDo
Canada310 Posts
| ||
|
Fig
United States1324 Posts
On September 22 2011 07:22 DARKHYDRA wrote: Balance at highest level, lower levels relatively unaffected. Balance at lower levels, completely changes things at the highest level. I'm a gold player, small changes here and there don't affect me much. I think what your trying to say is that the game should be fun at all levels which may be difficult to achieve because some races are harder to play than others so it takes more skill to get to the fun part. This! A change that makes a big enough difference that it affects the lower levels of play, will have an exponentially greater impact on the highest levels. That is the problem with balancing for the lower levels, it means you have to make drastic changes like taking out whole upgrades from the game (void ray speed) | ||
|
Techno
1900 Posts
However, I think "Fun" changes or "Design" changes can be made in response to the lower leagues. Of course, much consideration must be made for the top level while making these changes. I think discussing balance at different levels is still a fun thing to discuss. In real life, when you meet someone who SC2s, do you not talk about balance almost immediately? | ||
|
Kashll
United States1117 Posts
On September 22 2011 06:43 Jerubaal wrote: 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. Have you ever played TvP and PvT in Broodwar??? I don't think anyone that has played the game at any marginally competitive level will try to argue that PvT is miles miles miles easier than TvP. You basically have to have at least 200 APM just to play TvP at a D+ level. | ||
|
ChaosTerran
Austria844 Posts
On September 22 2011 06:48 Monkeyballs25 wrote: 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. This is wrong, Terran is by far the most micro intense race of all 3, that's also why Terran is the hardest race to play for lower level league players. Zerg and Protoss actually both require very little to no micro compared to terran units. | ||
|
CrazyBirdman
Germany3509 Posts
Needless to say is of course that the main focus of the design have to be the highest level but if the ones who do not dedicate their life to the game are left behind the game would still be poorly designed to be an e-sport. IMO SC2 ist currently at lower level pretty fair to everyone as long as you get past the 5 minute mark (no game design in the world will remove cheesy strategies). There is a reason why a simple sport like soccer ist the most popular in the world everyone can get a fair match everywhere. For me an e-sport has to be competitive at ervery level. Fun tournaments between silver league friends should be possible without eliminating a race because only pros can play it properly. | ||
|
Ubes
Ireland111 Posts
On September 22 2011 07:31 Sphaero wrote: It isn´t a "real" sport, yet, atleast outside Korea, but it has potential. Enough potential, that big companies invest thousands of dollars into tournaments or teams. Even at the current state it can fill halls with thousands of people. SC II or Esport in general would not be the first niche sport, that becomes mainstream. Think back 10 or 15 years. Where were sports like Poker, Darts or Snooker back then? Some of them had a really bad rep and others were followed by only a small amount of people. Now they can entertain millions of viewer. Gaming in general will gain more respect in the coming years, because the people who will be in charge of things are the ones who grew up with playing computer games. Even now gaming exhibitions like gamescom attract hundreds of thousands of people and it keeps growing and growing. I´m not saying, that it will reach the stage of Basketball/Baseball in the US or football in Europe, but it is defenitly possible, that it will become a n acknowlegded sport. I don't need your e-sport speech. His example is wrong, you cannot compare watching baseball/basketball vs SC2. In basketball two teams put a ball through a hoop, it's easy to undersand and pick up on. SC2 isn't like that at all. Hell Terran has like 15 Units and 15 buildings it's self not to mention the endless list of builds/strats ect. Oh now I see how they're comparable. | ||
|
HellionDrop
281 Posts
On September 22 2011 07:45 Techno wrote: I agree that Balance Changes should be made only in reaction to the highest level. However, I think "Fun" changes or "Design" changes can be made in response to the lower leagues. Of course, much consideration must be made for the top level while making these changes. I think discussing balance at different levels is still a fun thing to discuss. In real life, when you meet someone who SC2s, do you not talk about balance almost immediately? i think we could have more units like the mothership. something that doesn't affect the balance yet is fun to have. the top level pros really hit the timing very well, so i think some fun units can be incorporated as long as they don't affect the timing push that pros do so well with "standard units" | ||
|
deathly rat
United Kingdom911 Posts
The meta-game of each match-up is so volatile that huge swings in dominance occur still on a month by month basis, even with no balance changes. On a fundamental level SC2 is full of unit vs unit hard counters, so in theory no combination of units should be unbeatable. Recently the question has been more to do with opportunities for scouting and then having time to make a good response. Many early game aggressive strategies are unbeatable if not scouted, and this turns the game into a coin flip which no-one wants to see. Blizzard should have a methodical approach to balance that centres around very small changes followed by at least 2 months of post change analysis, and they should actually use their PTR. This much seems obvious. At the moment they seem to be balancing on the basis of how they think players should play the game vs what is actually happening. For example they obviously never wanted infestors to be used en-mass, so they just nerfed them. instead of seeing if the match-ups would settle down in their own time. High level players are certainly more able to discover if there are solutions within the game to problems with a match-up, but often even at high levels people's ideas on how a matchup should be played stagnate, and it takes inspiration of just 1 person to completely flip the balance on it's head. However if at low levels on match-up is extremely one sided then obviously this would have to be addressed. More important to me is how interesting the game is to play. ZvZ for me is so stale at the moment, so I really just don't want to play it. They really need to think about how they can introduce variety into the game, rather than allowing 1 strategy to be dominant. | ||
| ||
