EPTI also don't want the game dumbed down on lower bronze through masters. I think it would ruin playing SCII casually.
Only Balance for the Highest Level? - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Demonace34
United States2493 Posts
I also don't want the game dumbed down on lower bronze through masters. I think it would ruin playing SCII casually. | ||
|
ChaosTerran
Austria844 Posts
On September 22 2011 09:04 Lamphead wrote: is no one reading his post?!..the bigger theme rather than the obvious answers people keep asking is that for all we know, Zerg or some other race may be far OP, and we have no idea because we aren't playing SC2 on the highest level..and I actually agree. I believe Terran is this easiest to play, so perhaps Terran has reached its ceiling already, but if Jaedong came over and showed Zergs how to play properly, who knows what could happen.. In reality terran is the hardest to play and therefore has the highest skill ceiling, I already elaborated why that is the case and it's backed up by numbers. So it's not even debatable. | ||
|
Magorical
Australia23 Posts
This means that the team has to strike a balance (no pun intended) between keeping the general public satisfied as well as the major gaming circuit in order to have a successful game, and I think Blizzard have done a fine job with this so far. | ||
|
SecondChance
Australia603 Posts
On September 22 2011 06:18 YumYumGranola wrote:While I don't think anybody can honestly argue that it's possible to balance the game at ALL levels of play Either the game is balanced or it isn't. What are you arguing? That the skill requirements for players of any race to overcome their opponents from Bronze to Masters isn't exactly linear? How do you intend on proving this other than saying ( inaccurately) the game isn't 'balanced' (such poor choice of words imo) at all levels? This really pisses me off: On September 22 2011 06:18 YumYumGranola wrote:This thread will be about whether or not it's wise to only balance for the highest level of play. Now I'm sure higher level players will read this and roll eyes and angrily think " l2p n00bs", but please keep this in mind while you read this, if the general SC2 scene dies down you'll end up just being the person who's really good at something nobody cares about. What, you're threatening the scene if shit players aren't kept happy / think the game is balanced for them? How exactly can you prove to shit players that the game is balanced? By them winning? How many variables are there in a game that dictate who wins besides balance? I assume this is what you're alluding to. This wreaks of reinforcing the "I'm not in bronze because I'm bad, must be x reason / shit the game isn't balanced at all levels". On September 22 2011 06:18 YumYumGranola wrote:In our NA winning=fun culture Not to mention the false sense of entitlement, the self consciousness about league, ladder anxiety and numerous other fickle mindsets that plague the population. (Not hating on NA exclusively here). Probably Off Topic: Many Pro players at current will their own individual opinions about balance; some may coincide with other players, some may not. I would be inclined to say a few more changes could possibly be made before the game gets closer to being balanced. However, I can't say what because I don't play at the highest of tiers. I'm not qualified to speak as I don't understand the game like they do and I certainly wouldn't want to fuck it up for them because I can't overcome my own shortcomings. It is because of them we know there is a way forward. It is they we learn from and they we cheer for. If you're in bronze / insert shit league here; and you care about your league / rank; then I would advise you to stop reading threads like this. Get out of the strategy section unless you want to piss in the wind. Start playing. Start improving. Do something to help yourself. | ||
|
dogabutila
United States1438 Posts
On September 22 2011 09:04 Lamphead wrote: is no one reading his post?!..the bigger theme rather than the obvious answers people keep asking is that for all we know, Zerg or some other race may be far OP, and we have no idea because we aren't playing SC2 on the highest level..and I actually agree. I believe Terran is this easiest to play, so perhaps Terran has reached its ceiling already, but if Jaedong came over and showed Zergs how to play properly, who knows what could happen.. zergs learned how to play properly with nydus worms then people whined and blizz nerfed it into the ground. zergs learned how to play properly after MONTHS of getting demolished with infestors and then people whined and blizz nerfed infestors pretty badly. For real for real, the basic argument is to make it easy to play so people will be interested in it and keep playing = keep money in the game / sport scene etc. If the game is too hard then people will give up and not want to play anymore and then nobody will watch anymore and then there wont be money floating in the scene. I disagree with the premise. I know of quite a few people who don't play and watch GSL or MLG. I know of a bunch of people who played, quit, but still watch day9 and MLG, TSL, etc. I think if the premise was true, iccup wouldn't ever have any players in it other then korean pros because at the beginning of every season when ladder got reset you had to play against the super gosu people and get stomped by them. But people didn't quit because of that. People played harder because they wanted a taste of being that godly. If you make the game easy to play, then what the pros do doesn't seem awesome anymore. When they can micro 2 muta attacks at once while macroing then you know they are fucking godlike and you keep playing because they are your hero and you want to be like them. BW was a hard game. It was a popular game because you had to play so hard and so much to get one level up. And then you were still only D-. And then you had to play so much and so hard to get to C. | ||
|
Staboteur
Canada1873 Posts
On September 22 2011 08:27 Gamegene wrote: Until you play (nearly) perfectly none of those balances will come into play. Until you stop playing against yourself (meaning you refine your play to the point of Professional) you cannot be expected or allowed to cry "imbalance!". Isn't his point that each level of play should have their own concept of balance, and that you can't just point to the high levels and say "Well at grandmaster Zerg have the control necessary to neural/fungal the entire protoss army without losing all his shit therefore infestors are imba @ gold league"? ...and if imbalances are dictated per level of play, you could entirely have imbalances that would affect your own personal ladder experience, even though you're not anywhere near refined to the point of professionalism. Take, for example, marines vs banelings. At a really low level, marines are "easier" to make and use than banelings as they require less tech and come out of a building at a consistent rate, not dependant on either gas or larva or the existence of other units. Banelings, being harder to make, are less likely to be made in enough number, and because they're "harder to use", the zerg is likely to make a ton of mistakes in trying to use them, such as running them in single-file without any ling support. It wouldn't be hard to argue that at this level, TvZ is imbalanced in T's favour. However, move a level up where the Zerg now has a better understanding of how to manage his gas economy, and suddenly the zerg is capable of making enough banelings so that even despite terrible control, he'll win the absolutely-no-micro battle because he actually got beyond the critical number of banelings necessary to win. Move up a level again and the zerg has now also figured out that if you send zerglings in with banelings against marines, the victory is even more pronounced. It wouldn't be hard to argue that at this level, ZvT is harshly imbalanced in Zerg's favour, as essentially he has to do nothing but make units, then attack with them to win, because the Terran's next steps up are more difficult than the zergs last few steps have been. I could continue, but I'm sure you get the point. I don't think you -can- or -should- try balance for all levels of play, and as someone before wisely pointed out, the matchmaking system should even out the race imbalances, and no-one will be the wiser. | ||
|
SheaR619
United States2399 Posts
A better example, I will be borrowing from your example, is college basketball and NBA. What happen if a person has ONLY been trained to shoot to shoot 19'9. What happen if he transferred over to NBA? He will never be able to make the 23'9 3 pointer in NBA. What I am trying to say is that if people learn to play the game with different set of rules, it hard to tell if they are good or not. People will also complain, "WOW YOU ONLY WON CAUSE YOU CAN DO 'X' CAUSE WERE IN GOLD! IF WE WERE IN PLAT THIS WOULD NEVER HAPPEN CAUSE I COULD DO 'Y'." Or something along this line. Only way, I can think of that wont effect anything, is the map. If we have map that can balance lower lvl of play then it fine. But even still, people who abuse the map to their advantage, do they truly deserve to move up? TLDR: It a terrible idea, and too many flaws. I dont believe their really any other way to solve this other than learning to play and moving up. | ||
|
Subversion
South Africa3627 Posts
I propose: who gives a shit, you're way off topic. | ||
|
meadbert
United States681 Posts
Blizzard should balance for the typical players and their map pool. If this leads to imbalance at the highest levels then tournament organizers can fix it with map design. Just drop the maps that favor the race that is winning too much and keep maps that favor the race losing too much. | ||
|
Nizzy
United States839 Posts
| ||
|
RodYan
United States126 Posts
I think it's an absolutely great idea to have different game settings per league EDIT: Or a completely different game mode all together (i.e. Novice mode or Pro mode) In fact, Blizzard ALREADY DOES THIS. Any new player is allowed to play 50 "practice" games where he/she plays at slower speeds and rocks are positioned at the entrance to each base. The question really isn't whether or not Blizzard should do this. To make the best game for everyone to enjoy, the answer is "absolutely yes". The question, is what exactly would have to change from league to league that doesn't stifle a players growth and still keeps the game interesting. And also, does Blizzard have the time/resources to design and implement such a system. Maybe Master players don't have maps like searing crater in the map pool and only have GSL maps? Maybe bronze league players still have rocks at the front of their base? Maybe certain units/abilities cannot be built at lower leauges (like no DT or Banshees cannot cloak)? Maybe queens auto cast larva inject? Maybe SCVs and Probe production can be put on auto-cast? I honestly don't know what should change and I don't know what is acceptable or not, but I agree with the OP in that if you are going to make a game that is desirable across all levels of play, you need to consider what is going to be fun for everyone and not just high level players. Master Zerg fyi | ||
|
Lunchador
United States776 Posts
On September 22 2011 10:07 RodYan wrote: I'm not exactly sure why everyone is shitting on this guy's thread. I think it's an absolutely great idea to have different game settings per league. In fact, Blizzard ALREADY DOES THIS. Any new player is allowed to play 50 "practice" games where he/she plays at slower speeds and rocks are positioned at the entrance to each base. The question really isn't whether or not Blizzard should do this. To make the best game for everyone to enjoy, the answer is "absolutely yes". The question, is what exactly would have to change from league to league that doesn't stifle a players growth and still keeps the game interesting. And also, does Blizzard have the time/resources to design and implement such a system. Maybe Master players don't have maps like searing crater in the map pool and only have GSL maps? Maybe bronze league players still have rocks at the front of their base? Maybe certain units/abilities cannot be built at lower leauges (like no DT or Banshees cannot cloak)? Maybe queens auto cast larva inject? Maybe SCVs and Probe production can be put on auto-cast? I honestly don't know what should change and I don't know what is acceptable or not, but I agree with the OP in that if you are going to make a game that is desirable across all levels of play, you need to consider what is going to be fun for everyone and not just high level players. Master Zerg fyi No! Dear to ****ing god, no! The things you suggest, hell, anything you would potentially suggest will screw over "player growth" and mess up the nature of the competitive ladder. You do not change the way a competitive game is played for any level of play and I shudder that you proclaim yourself master's league and think it would be better that way. You don't have stuff done for you automatically in earlier RTSs, SC1, War2, War3, C&C, etc. just because you're a lower calibur player. You don't get auto-aim and an infinite rocket launcher in Quake, CS, CoD, etc. because you're a bad player. You don't get more lenient input windows than other players in fighting games because you haven't bothered to spend the time practicing and mastering your character. No, no, no! I'm all for encouraging newbie players to improve themselves in a competitive game, but it should be done the old-fashioned way: through actual practice, watching pro replays, and reading expert guides and discussions. It shouldn't be done through cheap artificial gimmicks that limit gameplay options just because players are low-ranked. | ||
|
SetStndbySmn
United States657 Posts
On September 22 2011 10:07 RodYan wrote: I'm not exactly sure why everyone is shitting on this guy's thread. I think it's an absolutely great idea to have different game settings per league EDIT: Or a completely different game mode all together (i.e. Novice mode or Pro mode) In fact, Blizzard ALREADY DOES THIS. Any new player is allowed to play 50 "practice" games where he/she plays at slower speeds and rocks are positioned at the entrance to each base. The question really isn't whether or not Blizzard should do this. To make the best game for everyone to enjoy, the answer is "absolutely yes". The question, is what exactly would have to change from league to league that doesn't stifle a players growth and still keeps the game interesting. And also, does Blizzard have the time/resources to design and implement such a system. Maybe Master players don't have maps like searing crater in the map pool and only have GSL maps? Maybe bronze league players still have rocks at the front of their base? Maybe certain units/abilities cannot be built at lower leauges (like no DT or Banshees cannot cloak)? Maybe queens auto cast larva inject? Maybe SCVs and Probe production can be put on auto-cast? I honestly don't know what should change and I don't know what is acceptable or not, but I agree with the OP in that if you are going to make a game that is desirable across all levels of play, you need to consider what is going to be fun for everyone and not just high level players. Master Zerg fyi The only suggestion that would be somewhat okay, is slightly different map pool variations from league to league. If you are playing in a league where larva/worker production is autocast, when you get promoted to the level where it isn't, you will have learned nothing and promptly get hammered back down to a place where you'll continue to learn nothing about it. Unit restrictions wouldn't be as harsh an eye opener, but still aren't a fantastic idea; new players need to see the whole puzzle and start problem solving early on; they aren't necessarily children that need to be babied, and can figure it out just like you did. | ||
|
the p00n
Netherlands615 Posts
| ||
|
Nagano
United States1157 Posts
First, look at SC2 in its current state. Some could argue that zerg may be harder to play at lower levels (note: it is), but it is nowhere near the BW tvp discrepancy you noted. This is quite important because the crux of your argument is that you don't want noobs to abandon the game like they would have in BW. In furtherance of this point, the difference in mechanics required to properly play each race, even at a low level, has become significantly smaller in SC2. Protoss could 1a2a3a in BW, but each race can do the same in SC2, especially when you consider the strategies in lower levels, which is what we are talking about. What would make each race as easy to play as the next, in the lower levels, is a similar mechanical requirement for proficiency. In SC2's current state, there isn't such a significant difference that would merit changing the balance philosophy of the game designers. | ||
|
YumYumGranola
Canada346 Posts
On September 22 2011 12:14 the p00n wrote: Think of it like this: what if every pro terran would be able to perfectly (I'm talking bot-like) split his marines so banelings would NEVER hit more than 1 marine at the same time (unless that was somehow perceived as optimal)... would you make banelings much cheaper and/or stronger, knowing that it would fix pro-level issues but totally break ZvT at lower levels? Thank you, this is exactly the kind of balance change I had in mind that would absolutely destroy ZvT at lower levels. Who would want to learn how to play Terran if you need to essentially be gosu before you could play a fair game against a zerg player? I don't know why people have such an issue with the idea of tiered rules. Maybe it doesn't happen in RTS games so much but in basically every single competitive sport in existence the rules/field are different for beginners than they are for pros. In fact most of these rules are how they are because no beginners would be able to play pro-style rules. Having tiered rules is a foundation of competitive development in our current society. Now most sports are balanced by default because teams have the same number of players/rules etc. which makes it difficult to understand in the context of an RTS like SC. It would be like teams playing by different rules for the same goal (i.e. Basketball: Team A can only dunk the ball for 2 points but can dribble, team B can only shoot 3's but can pass the ball). Now for arguments sake imagine that the height of the rim was such that just about anybody could dunk the ball. This game would be HORRIBLY unbalanced at low levels of play, but you might imagine a scenario that at high levels this game might be balanced. HOWEVER, who as a beginner would want to learn how to play the game for the 3 point team if it was staggeringly easier to win playing for the dunk team? That's the primary problem that exists for BW. If any of you made an account right now on ICCup and picked Terran or Zerg you'd probably play 50 games before your first win and would start out in Bronze League. However those who picked Toss would get into the iccup equivalent of Master's league. Can nobody seriously see how this would negatively affect the game's appeal to new players? I honestly didn't expect many SC2 players to quite grasp this concept. (The funny thing is many of the people who claim that balance should only affect the higher level also probably post on balance discussions and include personal anecdotes/replays etc. despite the fact that they're only in Masters league). We're lucky now that the game is relatively balanced at low levels (primarily because the "high" levels aren't all that high) but if it was like BW most players would either a) play Toss, or b) derp derp play a different game. People care about being able to wn games. If they didn't cheese wouldn't exist. The vast majority of players don't differentiate winning with improving (again why cheese exists) so looking at the cross section on the ladder I have serious doubts about whether most of these players would continue to play. | ||
|
Brotocol
243 Posts
But balance also affects lower levels of play, when 2 players are playing correctly, and one seems to have a disproportionately easier time achieving better results. This happens less often than at high level play, because a low level player might not be dealing with something correctly. I've written a bunch of posts on this in previous threads, and I realized that it's not a good idea to overcomplicate things. Just note that "I'm in diamond bro, so that 1-1-1 was fair" is wrong. It probably wasn't fair, and you should probably be complaining. You probably didn't deserve to lose so lopsidedly. But that doesn't mean that Blizzard should tone down 1-1-1 specifically for lower level players. Rather, the game should be robust enough at high levels, such that lower levels can at least know what they were supposed to be doing. Moral of the story: balance it for the high levels, and the low levels can (attempt to) follow (at varying derees of success). Addendum: Even a low level player can identify something that's imbalanced, as a spectator. 1-1-1 is such a strategy, I'd say. | ||
|
Roynalf
Finland886 Posts
 | ||
|
ishyishy
United States826 Posts
Plus, do you really think blizzard cares what the general masses say about the balance of the game? Probably to a much lesser extent than they do when pro's talk about balance. Pro players are the ones that understand this game to the highest and deepest level. The chances of them sending out surveys to pro teams before making major balance changes is probably pretty high, I would imagine. I havent heard of any pro players working for their sc2 R&D department (if such a thing exists...lol) so if that is true, then it would be obvious that they get their information from outside sources, and that does not include the casual (non-professional) side of the community. Making threads about stratagy to try and get around an "overpowered" build or unit is fine, but making balance threads is unacceptable. On what grounds does anyone, except pro players and blizzard r&d, speak about the balance of this game? Post your balance complaints on blizzard forums, or prepared to get trolled into the ground on these forums. your choice. | ||
|
SnipedSoul
Canada2158 Posts
If 1000 low league players posted replays where they lost I would bet fewer than 1% of the losses would be able to be attributed to balance and not mistakes made by the player. | ||
| ||
