|
On September 29 2011 02:19 Selentic 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.
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.
A game with a large skill gap like Starcraft is realistically impossible to balance at every level of play, plain and simple.
|
On September 22 2011 06:40 Ubes wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Sure. But there is also this phenomoenon of people being very good at one matchup but struggling hard at another matchup. And that even happens at lower leagues.
The basic mechanics of mining and production and army control are the same in all matchups. That means if there are major differences in your win rates in different matchups, there must be a strategic problem. Something that this race you have problems against can do that is very hard to deal with for someone of approximately equal skill level.
Few people would say that the skill cap of SCII is even close to reached. That means if you say "just get better" to players struggling with a build or matchup in lower leagues, you must say the same to the top pro players, or admit that it is impossible to get any better at the game.
The better solution of course would be to wait long times to see how the game develops.
Zerg strugghled with the protoss death ball since the game came out. It took a whole year for enough zerg players to learn infestor micro and NP usage well enough to be able to deal with it. And 2-3 weeks after it became clear that this is actually a viable way to deal with colossus death balls it was taken out of the game and protoss got some buffs on top of it.
Now at the top level in korea protoss struggle with zerg, mainly because they can't keep up with the economy. Well, get better at harassing then. Zerg can't keep up with your army. That isn't any better or worse of a problem, it is just a different problem.
|
If you are not at the highest level....then there is no need to worry about balance or whine about it. Look for areas you can imrove on, and work at it. There's a reason why you are not playing at the highest level and it has nothing to do with balance.
|
I think its important to realise that if a bronze player finds tvp is imballanced at bronze, he has the option to practice, and eventually he will reach the skill level where it is balanced. At the top tier, this isn't really an option anymore 
The idea of changing the game in lower leagues is (imo) really bad, i wouldnt ever go further then mabye making the lowest leagues have an option to play on a lower gamespeed for their first x games or something. The main interest alot of people have in watching pro games is to see how the matchup should be played or how to defend a certain all in. If they play a different version of the game then none of this applies, and pro games become essentially irrelevant.
|
I don't think the lower levels need a different balance structure from the higher levels- cheese already exists, will always exist, and is inevitable. And at low-level play the skill factor is huge as mentioned before my post here. Also, regarding losing players, players will always hold misconceptions about gameplay- Eg. I go mass stalker and win- other guy says "stalker IMBA" when it was just his macro, then I go mass stalker again and lose so I say "stalker needs buff" when really I'm just being an idiot. So this may be much ado about nothing? At this point anyway. I acknowledge the possibility of drastic change affecting lower level play but until it happens why worry? Blow the whistle when there's a problem. Still an interesting topic though.
|
On September 29 2011 02:51 ArEgHollow wrote:
If you are not at the highest level....then there is no need to worry about balance or whine about it. Look for areas you can imrove on, and work at it. There's a reason why you are not playing at the highest level and it has nothing to do with balance.
I just quoted this post not to insult you, but because I read the underlying opinion over and over again and it just couldn't be more wrong.
If a gold player could get to masters in a day just by switching from zerg/toss to terran, then of course he should worry about balance. The game would be terribly, terribly imbalanced then.
To put a more realistical example: if I could boost my MMR from low masters to mid-master by switching to terran, then, again, blizzard should worry about balance. Even though balance should be geared towards the highest level of play, if the imbalance is too severe in lower levels then everyone will be dissatisfied.
|
I don't care how imbalanced the game is at the lower level as long as it's balanced at the top. Knowing that it's balanced at the peak gives me something to strive towards and also lets me learn from the top players of my race.
It's much worse in my opinion to feel despair because the players you look up to lose to the same shit as you and there is nowhere to get inspiration or ideas. That's the kind of situation that makes competitive people quit games.
|
Ok but the difference will never be that big, be realistic. How could it be balanced at prolevel but T far far better, gold to masters jump in skill, at lower level? No changes will do that.
|
Every non-masters league player has the opportunity to balance their own league by getting better.
|
Balance changes should be first and foremost aimed at the spectators.
Since spectators don't want to see things such as a terran-filled GSL, that shouldn't conflict with the highest level of play. On the contrary, the more spectators, the more motivation for the pros.
|
After reading this closer I come to understand now what you are truly mean. It an interesting concept but I dont think blizzard would change the game to make it soo balance one sided.
An example used before about marine and blings if marine micro were perfected. Obvious blizzard would have to nerf marine or buff blings to solve this problem because bling are one of the main choices to deal with marine. I personally think it better to keep the game balance at the high lvl simply because it will give weaker player something to stride for. It an interesting concept but obviously there should be some balance at the lower lvl of play too otherwise the game would be consider broken and it would not be fun to play for newer player.
Using another game as an example is Super Smash Brawl. In this game, it can be consider balance at low lvl but at high lvl of play.....Meta Knight simply rapes everything. Sure there could be a few good Solid Snake here and there but simply put, Meta Knight rapes everything. This is what I fear for sc2 because right now terran is up. But it was the same for broodwar as well considering that most bonjiwa were Terran. There was a point in time during iloveoov reign of dominance, Terran was considered imbalanced too. This was of course over his bonjiwa period so it was a good year or so that people considered terran imba. I still think starcraft 2 is to early to tell though.
|
Well, let's face it:
a) if we want esports to grow, balance should aim towards professional play
b) SC:BW and SC2 will both always be extremly imbalanced from a theoretical point of "if player A does X, player B can do Y and beat it", as there will always be things that will be "uncounterable". (perfect marine micro against banelings of creep); but as those games are limited by player's limits and by chance (fog of war, build order losses), the only way to usefully approach balance is by statistics. Even though this might theoretically lead to nerfs/buffs towards a race that is only superior due to superior players.
So in my eyes it is a great thing, that blizzard is and hopefully stays active with their balancing. It's argueable that some patches (have) come to fast, yet if it leads to all races competing in Code S (and winning it), I guess we should respect that as reasonable balancing.
(f.e. In 5years we might see 500 APM blink micro by Bisu that makes stalkers beat stimmed marauders, but right now we can't know and therefore there is no "stalker problem", although theoretical imbalance might be out there)
on a last note: if stuff gets out of hand in lower leagues, or matchups get disgustingly "easy to master" or hit a "point of no return" for one race (unbeatable compositions), this should be patched out, even if the matches are statistically balanced ("early game wins" vs "lategame dominance")
|
On September 29 2011 03:34 Tyrant0 wrote:
Every non-masters league player has the opportunity to balance their own league by getting better.
And as I have stated above, since the skill ceiling isn't nearly reached for SCII yet, this also is true for the top players.
So either no one is allowed to complain about balance, or everyone.
If a lot of players have difficulties over a long period of time with one matchup but not with the others, then this is a a balance question, no matter how you cut it, no matter the skill level. The basic mechanics are the same for one race in every matchup.
If there is a big discrepancy in success in different matchups this is a strategic problem in this matchup. And if this big discrepancy persists over a longer time of several months then it is pretty sure that this is not a question of a lack of knowledge about the matchup but because of a problem within the game.
|
On September 29 2011 03:50 imbecile wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 03:34 Tyrant0 wrote:
Every non-masters league player has the opportunity to balance their own league by getting better. And as I have stated above, since the skill ceiling isn't nearly reached for SCII yet, this also is true for the top players. So either no one is allowed to complain about balance, or everyone. If a lot of players have difficulties over a long period of time with one matchup but not with the others, then this is a a balance question, no matter how you cut it, no matter the skill level. The basic mechanics are the same for one race in every matchup. If there is a big discrepancy in success in different matchups this is a strategic problem in this matchup. And if this big discrepancy persists over a longer time of several months then it is pretty sure that this is not a question of a lack of knowledge about the matchup but because of a problem within the game.
I'm not complaining about balance, and you're right; it's equally true for pros at this stage. And it's actually happened, too. I'd rather Blizzard get their hands out of balance and stop neutering a race as they reach the cusp of a solution and shutting down any ingenuity that will always, and normally imbalance a match-up for a while.
You can't treat every 'perceived' match-up imbalance the same and declare it an issue in the game. They're unique and should be treated case by case. It takes a very, very intelligent/creative player to break through the meta game and change it.You can only assume so given the length of some of the imbalances in match-ups that exist.
|
On September 22 2011 06:46 YumYumGranola wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Okay, I agree with your point. I absolutely believe the game should be balanced at the highest levels only. It doesn't even effect lower levels unless your literally the worst player. Otherwise even if matchup XvY becomes harder to win as X players of X race will get matched against slightly weaker players of Y race to compensate.
Morever, at any level other than a very top level, your not losing because of any imbalance, your losing because of flaws in your play. A plat player that loses to 1/1/1 isn't losing because of "imba" he is losing because he isn't playing well enough. A diamond/master skill level player will have no difficulty crushing a gold players 1/1/1.
What I dislike though, is how much your absurdly overstating the TvP balance in BW. Yes, except for the very top, TvP has always been P favored over T. T has more stuff to do, and little mistakes can serve significantly more costly. Siege bad as terran and your whole army gets obliterated. Engage in a bad spot/formation as protoss, 1234 your way out and lose 6 dragoons. I don't think anyone is going to argue that T has alot more stuff to worry about it, is mechanically more demanding, and is generally more punished for small mistakes. However a well played terran is extremely strong, probably borderline imba. Its just doesn't happen that people play at that level often for an entire game, let alone an entire series.
Anyway, T->P switch being like a silver -> masters switch is just not correct at all. More like mid/high diamond -> Low masters. I don't know how the heck you switched from terran at D/D+ and suddenly made C as protoss but I'm quite certain your a major outlier. As a D+ protoss, I can offrace as T and still maintain D rank, and I don't even really know what I am doing. The only thing I can possibly imagine is that your playstyle was just plain too slow to do the stuff terran needed to do, but you had developed a really solid grasp on the game so with the less demanding mechanics of P were able to be much more significantly successful as P.
But it still doesn't make sense really. Your saying as a D- terran you were able to switch, not knowing what your doing hardly, and get C as protoss. I'm sorry if your D- its purely because your mechanics, macro and builds are awful. I just can't see someone with awful macro, mechanics, and as stated not knowing builds well. Unless you were doing the most absolutely abusive builds you could possible come up with. D- players don't suddenly become C players, regardless of ANY racial switch.
|
On September 29 2011 03:28 sleepingdog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 02:51 ArEgHollow wrote:
If you are not at the highest level....then there is no need to worry about balance or whine about it. Look for areas you can imrove on, and work at it. There's a reason why you are not playing at the highest level and it has nothing to do with balance. I just quoted this post not to insult you, but because I read the underlying opinion over and over again and it just couldn't be more wrong. If a gold player could get to masters in a day just by switching from zerg/toss to terran, then of course he should worry about balance. The game would be terribly, terribly imbalanced then. To put a more realistical example: if I could boost my MMR from low masters to mid-master by switching to terran, then, again, blizzard should worry about balance. Even though balance should be geared towards the highest level of play, if the imbalance is too severe in lower levels then everyone will be dissatisfied.
Once again. This is an example of confusing balance with ease of play. You will perform differently with the races depending on your personal strengths and weaknesses as a player. I micro better than macro. So I don't 1v1 well with Z. Whereas I can be successful in team games as Z by making use of early game ling/bling harrassment. Ending most games before the heavy Z macro comes into full effect.
Many such examples exist regardless of which race change you do. Ultimately I switched from Terran to Toss and have done better since. Drop play and sentries capitalize on my micro. And i find toss macro to be more manageable than T or Z. So I just perform better. Has nothing to do with balance.
TL:DR
Sounds like you should play terran. I think you are better with them. That's all there is to it.
|
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 reaper nerf. And before anyone says that the reaper is a crap unit that should be removed; exactly.
|
On September 29 2011 04:05 Valeranth wrote:Show nested quote +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 reaper nerf. And before anyone says that the reaper is a crap unit that should be removed; exactly.
Flux Vanes Removal. Unless you honestly think that Void Ray Harass was affecting high level play...even when it was never seen in Code A/S/MLG before the nerf happened.
|
Honestly it should stay for highest level of play imo. The things that are OP in bronze league seem much less OP (or more OP depending on things) then things would be in GM/masters. I can't think of a good example, but if we balance around the lowest level of play where players float 1k+ minerals/gas or don't have enough production or a zerg trying to take like 4 bases without saturating them etc. then everything would seem OP.
Also the reaper nerf was basicly because of morrow 5 raxing vs zerg, and how stupid it was to watch.I mean now roachs have more range now, but it was still ridiculous at the time to watch.
|
On September 29 2011 02:08 okrane wrote:
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.
This was a really great analysis. It is really important to incorporate the concept of skill ceilings, which I believe accounts for the prevalence of Terrans at the highest level.
I think Terran has the highest skill ceiling for micro. For example: in the lower leagues, if the opponent went extremely Marine-heavy in TvZ, banelings would hard-counter and the Terran would lose. However, at the highest level of play, high-APM marine-splitting makes banelings much less effective. Zerg could have equivalently good micro, it just doesn't pay off in the same way.
However, from Blizzard's point of view, they simply can't balance the game just from the highest level of play. Take this as a thought experiment: what if there were some balance change that made Grandmaster's league completely balanced, but made Terran lose 80% of their matches in the lower leagues.
That would make all the pro-players and Esports community happy, but it would make the game unenjoyable for a large portion of their user base, and that's where Blizzard makes most of their money.
I agree that Blizzard should heavily bias their balancing towards the highest level of play, but as a principle, that cannot be their only goal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
