|
On September 29 2011 01:23 ishyishy wrote:
If you want to complain about balance, why not go post it on the blizzard forums? Yeah the only people that reply to your posts will be the trolls that got perma banned from everything else on several accounts, but its also the only place where blizzard will read your feedback.
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.
I don't want to complain about balance (read the OP)
|
This very week I saw a Korean pro have his zealots uselessly dancing behind his stalkers and immortals and lose the game because of it. No one's playing at "the highest levels" yet.
|
PvT in BW is easier for 99.99% of P's who ever played it probably. Yet; it's balanced. Just means you gotta maybe play a P player with lower skills as a close opponent. Or just keep playing people at your level and improve faster anyway... i feel like this kind of thing just makes you raise your game and improve.
If Blizzard tried to balance BW, current day, you can bet PvT would be ripped apart immediately and ruined. Thank fuck they've let it alone for so long.
Edit: I see other people mentioned PvT, but seriously it is easier for P, so much easier and i play both sides of it - in PvT i can keep up with a C+ T even though im probably like D+ overall, other way around and any average P can probably have a decent chance in a macro game
Infact T is harder all the way up to just below prolevel really, look at the amount of foreigner P/Z compared to T. That's fine though as long as it's balanced... it isn't a big deal. But i'm also of the opinion everyone should be random or at least rotating between races, T is what i like to play when i want the most mechanical challenge. If you are a low level not serious player why not really.
Just offtopic but it makes me laugh seeing all these new guys come in, desperately looking for builds making post-it notes of supply counts and trying to practice just to follow the builds down correctly. You guys are just ruining some of the fun of the game turning into this. Just learn the general stuff and then play your way through games, keeping resources and supply correct and building tech in the order you feel is right. You'll honestly have more fun and it will feel more rewarding that way. Personally i've never followed a build order, if i see something like 2hatch muta i just build what i think would be correct and change to make it better. And sometimes i do a lot of random little tactics i think up that others don't do.
This is the fun of the game! Seriously fuck ranks and everything just go out there and play on the fly, cause it's awesome. This applies to most people since i think D+ is supposedly like masters on SC2. Above that you need to play refined to win games but if you are not at the level, who cares have some fun.
|
Ask any bronze player - 6pool is imbalanced
Ask HuK - don't scout or prepare for it against Moon, win anyway.
Balancing for anything other than the best is retarded.
Frankly, balancing much at all now is foolish anyway, because as you said, there is still a huge skill ceiling to be discovered. Liquid`Tyler is one of the big promoters of the "let it be, and see what happens in time", and I totally think this is a way forward. e.g. There are big complaints about 1/1/1 at the moment, but I think in time Protoss will find a way to rape it, and make it a bad move from Terran.
|
I really like when it's balanced at pro levels because it means that the closer to the highest skill level I become, the more I will win, and until I get to that level (never in my case ,i dont play enough) it means the less I have to care about balance in order to beat my opponent.
|
Some points made in the op made me think:
While it might be easy to say "W/E I like this game and I'm good so I don't care about your troubles" 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.
From my personal experience, I would think that to cheer for someone like Naniwa (^_^) at a tournament you don't need to worry about whether "Terran is OP" or "Protoss is UP". The reason for this is that many people realize that their thoughts don't really matter, because it is in fact Naniwa who is playing at the moment and not them. So you can't possibly say "Oh Naniwa lost this game because he plays Protoss, and from my own games I feel that PvZ is in favor of the Zerg race."
That's just silly.
...if the general SC2 scene dies down you'll end up just being the person who's really good at something nobody cares about.
From what I said above, this argument seems to implode in on itself: How can the general scene die down if people are still watching pros play even though they themselves might struggle? Also, this point assumes that most people do in fact lose interest in the game because of some perceived imbalance and not something else (ex. university, job, other games, unwillingness to spend more time in order to get better).
Or, on the other hand, what if the people who complain instead of trying to get better, even though they might feel something is imbalanced, leave? Then what?
You'll be left with the majority of the community who do want to improve, even though they sometimes feel that some race is 'too strong'. Even the fact that people believe different races are 'too strong' solidifies the point that people just like to complain about a race they have difficulty beating, which is different for different people (Ex. I myself just can't seem to beat Zergs as easily as I can beat Terrans and Protoss, but I won't say that Zerg is 'too strong' just because of that fact)
So to sum this up, yes, I strongly believe that the game should only be re-balanced based on results at the very top. In my opinion this will result in much less trouble than trying to balance the game for every level of play.
|
On September 29 2011 01:32 infinity2k9 wrote:
PvT in BW is easier for 99.99% of P's who ever played it probably. Yet; it's balanced. Just means you gotta maybe play a P player with lower skills as a close opponent. Or just keep playing people at your level and improve faster anyway... i feel like this kind of thing just makes you raise your game and improve.
If Blizzard tried to balance BW, current day, you can bet PvT would be ripped apart immediately and ruined. Thank fuck they've let it alone for so long.
Exactly, but a big part of that is because the BW ladder system and leagues like iccup don't really have the infrastructure to have different rules at different levels, which SC2 might be able to do with it's leagues and matchmaking system. You're absolutely right, it is balanced, but only for top players and if it was subjected to SC2 style balance discussions it would be destroyed. That's the problem I see. There's a reason BW fell out (in fact I'm not sure it was ever played seriously by the masses outside of Korea, most people were too intimidated) in most foreign scenes. I think one of the major reasons why SC2 has been so successful in the foreign scene is BECAUSE it is balanced at low levels (at least enough). But as the person above pointed out SC2 is not played at "high" levels in the same sense that BW is. SC2 is still extremely young and a lot can change. I wouldn't expect most SC2 players to play more than 3 or 4 PvTs before giving up and going back to SC2 where they can win games.
|
On September 29 2011 01:34 NorthernIrelandGlob wrote:
Ask any bronze player - 6pool is imbalanced
Ask HuK - don't scout or prepare for it against Moon, win anyway.
Balancing for anything other than the best is retarded.
Frankly, balancing much at all now is foolish anyway, because as you said, there is still a huge skill ceiling to be discovered. Liquid`Tyler is one of the big promoters of the "let it be, and see what happens in time", and I totally think this is a way forward. e.g. There are big complaints about 1/1/1 at the moment, but I think in time Protoss will find a way to rape it, and make it a bad move from Terran.
While I agree with the main body of your post, if I recall, HuK actually scouted Moon first on that final game on Taldarim giving him JUST enough time to get the Forge and Cannons up. Funnily enough, if he hadn't scouted that way it would've been a flat out loss. Talk about coin flips!
|
On September 29 2011 01:41 branflakes14 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 01:34 NorthernIrelandGlob wrote:
Ask any bronze player - 6pool is imbalanced
Ask HuK - don't scout or prepare for it against Moon, win anyway.
Balancing for anything other than the best is retarded.
Frankly, balancing much at all now is foolish anyway, because as you said, there is still a huge skill ceiling to be discovered. Liquid`Tyler is one of the big promoters of the "let it be, and see what happens in time", and I totally think this is a way forward. e.g. There are big complaints about 1/1/1 at the moment, but I think in time Protoss will find a way to rape it, and make it a bad move from Terran. While I agree with the main body of your post, if I recall, HuK actually scouted Moon first on that final game on Taldarim giving him JUST enough time to get the Forge and Cannons up. Funnily enough, if he hadn't scouted that way it would've been a flat out loss. Talk about coin flips!
Sorry, I must have got the details wrong! but even there, it's not a flat out loss! he still has more workers than lings, and by the time the next round of lings get there, his cannon SHOULD be done. But anyway, this isn't the 6pool discussion thread, you get my point =p
|
I think balance should exist at all or at least most levels. However, you have to start at the top in order to at least balance the potential of each race before looking lower to talk about the ease of achieving that potential.
Also, I don't particularly like your bw example. I played protoss for a while and wound up getting into C/C+. I never did play terran, so I can't say you are certainly wrong in stating that mu was imbalanced. Still, I decided to mess around with zerg for a couple seasons and got into C with that as well after some practice, so it seemed that skill measured between those two races was reasonably equal.
I would also point out that the sc2 match making system makes all this kind of unimportant anyway as you are going to be matched against people that are pretty close to your skill no matter what.
|
^
Removing hellion speed upgrade
Blue flame hellion nerf.
Not making fungal have a lag animation (from a PTR)
Not making EMP have a lag animation
Just to name a few.
|
Void Rays and Reapers were ruined because of "balancing for lower levels"...so I'm against it.
|
Balancing a game on any level but the absolute top (i'm talking KR grandmasters/code S) is kinda pointless, given that SC II is trying to become an e-sport.
|
On September 29 2011 01:40 YumYumGranola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 01:32 infinity2k9 wrote:
PvT in BW is easier for 99.99% of P's who ever played it probably. Yet; it's balanced. Just means you gotta maybe play a P player with lower skills as a close opponent. Or just keep playing people at your level and improve faster anyway... i feel like this kind of thing just makes you raise your game and improve.
If Blizzard tried to balance BW, current day, you can bet PvT would be ripped apart immediately and ruined. Thank fuck they've let it alone for so long. Exactly, but a big part of that is because the BW ladder system and leagues like iccup don't really have the infrastructure to have different rules at different levels, which SC2 might be able to do with it's leagues and matchmaking system. You're absolutely right, it is balanced, but only for top players and if it was subjected to SC2 style balance discussions it would be destroyed. That's the problem I see. There's a reason BW fell out (in fact I'm not sure it was ever played seriously by the masses outside of Korea, most people were too intimidated) in most foreign scenes. I think one of the major reasons why SC2 has been so successful in the foreign scene is BECAUSE it is balanced at low levels (at least enough). But as the person above pointed out SC2 is not played at "high" levels in the same sense that BW is. SC2 is still extremely young and a lot can change. I wouldn't expect most SC2 players to play more than 3 or 4 PvTs before giving up and going back to SC2 where they can win games.
You could make a strong argument for that but keep in mind i am not saying it was wildly out of balance you can still win games. The reason it never took off in my eyes is simply because 1v1 was never particularly popular and Blizzard's ladder sucked, pushed everyone off to casual BGH and Fastest games. And it's a very harsh unforgiving hard game regardless of the balance. All this together means nah of course it's not going to have a big western 1v1 scene. These are guys that talk about fucking ladder anxiety and being unable to press 'find match'.
So of course when shiny SC2 comes in with lasers and explosions and is much simplified people will enjoy it. For a while at least... but 1v1 will still drop off because the casual people will move onto the next game, the people inhabiting the lower levels that is. And because of how the game is designed a lot of them are not enjoying it anymore than they would a BW game anyway, ie: losing straight up to timing attacks and stuff like that. Plus ironically with the new APM system, even if PvT was easier for P you wouldn't notice if the players you randomly played were better than you or not or if you are being matched against objectively inferior players.
Just my thoughts anyway but i kinda think so many changes aimed solely at the lower level player won't help anything, just remove features like showing losses - a ridiculous babying change. If they can't tell if it's balanced or not anyway with matchmaking, who cares? I say ignore those numbers from lower leagues totally.
Make the balance for the eSport vehicle we have here.. cause that is the long term future, not these guys who are likely to quit at some point anyway. Ignore what happens as a result of GM balancing lower down; and a better game will be made i think. Also it's never going to go waaay out in the lower leagues or anything unless they introduce a unit which needs 100 APM to operate it alone and is totally vital.
|
On September 29 2011 01:54 cLutZ wrote:
Void Rays and Reapers were ruined because of "balancing for lower levels"...so I'm against it.
An unbiased person would argue they were fixed. This is why balance discussions are so pointless. Everyone has an opinion and noone will budget.
|
This is interesting, but look at it this way, for the sake of winning $50,000, I bloody hope it's balanced at the highest level.
I still see mistakes happening and no-one has played the perfect game just yet. So it's not going to happen any time soon. I had wonder this myself, in a sense where what if one pro can create an anomoly. Say a race is actually imbalanced for everyone else except this one guy with god like skill, reflexes and ability, that no one else can learn to acheive or copy.
The race shouldn't be nerfed, it's the player itself.
Interesting again, in what you suggest, that there could be different leagues with different set of rules to achieve 'balance' among lower levels. I like the idea of leagues with easier/crazy/'more fun' rule sets. However, this is a competitive game unfortunately, it's about skill and knowledge. If Blizzard were to create other types of leagues that are more forgiving, will these players ever move on to the next level. It could undermine the competitive nature of the game.
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?
This example is interesting. However, I think if every pro terran is able to do this then I suppose yes then you would need to adjust the balance, if only one pro terran is able to do this then you shouldn't. Majority of players mean that the skill can be achieved. Although even if this was actually the case, is it even necessary to adjust balance?
Is the baneling really the correct counter to use on marines in the first place. Can something else be used differently, or conjunctively, say a fungal, ling surround. A new unit? Design can be adjusted rather than balance.
If a race is actually imbalanced due to a higher difficulty curve, it's not really a balance problem it's a design problem. You have tiers, which comes up in many competitive games.
The best solution is still to adjust balance according to top level play/top level strategies used etc, because it will naturally adjust down to the lower levels. Learn to play comes with the territory. Everyone and I mean everyone are on the same playing field, no buts.
|
There is a major flaw in the way you are presenting your initial arguement, by pushing all race differences, strength and weaknesses alike under the balance rug. The current mindset that is polluting these forums is that if one "lesser skilled" player (whatever that might mean) is able to defeat a more skilled player by picking race x against race y the XvY match-up is imbalanced.
There are two sides of the story:
Race Understanding
The above definition of imbalance is pretty narrow because it assumes that "skill" is something that is interchangeable between the two races and measurable in some way.
This is not true. In fact I believe that for each race the definition of skill is different.
Simple example: would you say that hitting your larva injects and spreading your creep while scouting is of the same nature as building marines, tanks and pressuring? I don't think the two are comparable. The easiest way to see this is that when a pro player switches from a race to another he sucks horribly at first. Basically when switching to a new race, you are learning the skillset of that new race.
This is basically the first flaw of your argument: the fact that different races require different understanding and nothing says that the understanding is reached at the same level of play (especially for the lower levels)
Simple Example: If a Zerg going for a defensive 6pool is beating a Terran rushing a Planetary Fortress at his first Command Center, what can you say about balance?
This makes the needed skill compete completely different from one race to another. Race understanding only comes at the highest of levels and thus lower down you can't really predict the result and understand which way balance is shifting.
Mechanics
Secondly there are mechanics. This raises an entirely different observation: in order to quantify race balance in terms of comparing the worth of two players we should take only comparable mechanics components into consideration.
For example:
* multitasking
* macro ability
* micro ability
These are comparable skills, and players who excel on one race will, after of course learning the race-specific skill set, dominate with any race.
Now that I have narrowed it down to more tangible variables, let's look at the initial question. We might define balance as the following: if two players with reasonably similar multitasking, macro and micro play a lot of games, the win ratio of each one of the players will converge to 50%. This seems reasonable.
However there are two problems with this.
1) There is no conversion rate between any to different skillsets
What do I mean by that? You cannot compare in any way a guy who has say 70% from perfect multitasking and 80% from perfect micro, with another who has 80% multitasking and 70% micro. It's just impossible. What this will create is a different skew in race wins in function of the race design and especially of how rewarding is for a race to master one of the skill sets.
More concretely: if in platinum league, a Zerg with 2000 minerals in the bank dies to a stim drop from a Terran with 3000 minerals in the bank can you state anything about the game's balance?
This means unless all players have a decent enough mastery of all the needed skill sets you cannot really measure balance.
2) Skill ceilings
When talking about the common skillets between different races, because of their differences one race can reward a skill more than another. As players are perfecting themselves, when reaching good mechanics some races can cap faster than others.
Example for Micro. A Zergling, no matter how much you micro it, is still a zergling. There is not much to gain from doing anything different than attack moving with it. Marines for example are a whole different issue: they have stim, studder step, one can split them against banelings, drop them, put them next to walls, etc.
What does this mean: two things:
- at low level of play when both players basically attack move the zergling vs marine fight might seem balanced.
- at high level of play it will mean that as the players get more experience and their micro reaches 100% efficiency, the marine user will find himself winning more and more because of the added depth of the unit.
This mechanics section proves two things:
a) When dealing with players with sub-par mechanics, you cannot assert anything about game balance as the game is not played at maximum efficiency. You might state that if two players have exactly the same flaws in mechanics they should be equally matched, but this is at first impossible to quantify, as point 1 proves, and secondly even we might somehow imagine such a scale, having balance at all levels of imperfection would require a much harder effort than balancing at the perfect-play level.
b) Because of the differences between races, things that seem balanced at low levels can become problematic at high levels because of the way rewards scale with the improvement of the players.
Conclusions:
I) Race balance should be looked at only from the perspective of the best play.
II) Race design should be such as all races scale in efficiency similarly with the increase in skill of different players.
|
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?
Why do you need to play something to understand it?
|
Balance in my opinion should only be considered on the highest level. Like other people said, a lot of them are making a living from this, and they deserve the fairest level of play. I don't see it being a good thing if a bronze league game was balanced over a GM game.
|
On September 29 2011 01:34 NorthernIrelandGlob wrote:
Ask any bronze player - 6pool is imbalanced
Ask HuK - don't scout or prepare for it against Moon, win anyway.
Balancing for anything other than the best is retarded.
There is a GIGANTIC difference between letting a bronze player dictate how to balance the game, and balancing the game to be fair for everyone.
If a race is easier than another race regardless of whether a high level player will know to play the harder race then an imbalance exists and it should be dealt with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
