On September 23 2011 05:52 ChriseC wrote: there are some things that i dont understand
ladder system tries to keep you to 50% win/lose ratio, so isnt it representitive at all?
Yeah thats something i don't understand also, if there system tries to keep everyone at a 50/50 point then these numbers are irrelevant because even if one match up is broken or imbalanced the system will just place them vs people worse until they are able to win in that match up. I guess it could be counter acted by them doing really well in the other two match ups but still it something to think about is this really balance or just there system working really well.
I think the most disturbing part of this post is the implication that balancing for all skill levels is something that should be a highly rated priority.
Balancing for the lowest common denominator is the absolute least important consideration when balancing a competitive game. If the game is horribly skewed for lower leagues but is 50/50/50 in pro play then I'd consider that perfectly balanced. I don't know how many people share my sensibilities on this issue however. I'm just really disturbed because this is reminding me of the logic behind WoW arena balance.
On September 23 2011 05:40 jdseemoreglass wrote: When it comes to "measuring" balance, Blizzard has some of the most ass-backwards logic I've ever heard in my life.
Every game that's played on battlenet is a function of two dependent variables: skill and balance. If you don't know one, it is mathematically impossible to calculate the other. This is an undeniable common sense fact.
If you don't know what the balance is, you can't calculate a player's relative "skill." After you've falsely and incorrectly assumed you know what a players skill is, you can't use that number to somehow assess the balance of the game. It makes no fucking sense!
Am I the only one who sees this? Let me break it down to kindergarten level for you...
Let's say Idra and MC play 10 games together. MC wins 6, Idra wins 4.
Now... did MC win more because of balance or because of skill? YOU CAN'T KNOW THAT SIMPLY FROM THE WIN/LOSS STATISTICS! No matter how many millions of games were played, it would be absolutely impossible to know if MC was winning more because of skill or balance. You cannot calculate EITHER with win ratios. And so long as they are both dependent and unknown variables, you won't ever, ever, be able to figure them out independently.
Is Blizzard really this stupid, or do they assume everyone else is?
This idea works for your 2-man example but with a sample size of thousands it is quite reasonable to assume that skill is more-or-less even across all races.
Yes, they work with this assumption as an axiom. Supported also by the expectation that people will switch races to adapt to imbalances.
So balance = average score across all players ; skill = individual score compared to the average. Using both at the same time means the curve becomes more skewed towards the average. All extremes (bad and good) are made even more negligible than they already are. Which is kind of redundant and silly.
On September 23 2011 05:58 happyness wrote: Has anyone calculated the probability of there being 20/32 terrans in the GSL assuming the 96 top players are 32 of each race? And how would you solve that?
I know I shouldn't post this but It seemed quite funny to caculate so I tryed. If we consider that the game is balance means there is a uniform distribution on the code S spots for the 3 races (so basically we can toss a dice for each code S spot , so we throw 32 dices and look what is the result). Now the probability that terran got k (20 here) spot in code S which have n players (32 here) is : (n! 2^(n-k))/(k!(n-k)! 3^n). It's quite ugly but I'm not sure it's possible to make a better formula (well at least it works for n=1 and n=2 ) This formula gives that the probability that there is 20 terrans out of 32 players is 0,05%. In comparison the probability that there is 12 terran is 12% and 11 terran is 14%....
Thanks, though that seems really low. Fuck it's been too long since I took stats....
On September 23 2011 05:40 jdseemoreglass wrote: When it comes to "measuring" balance, Blizzard has some of the most ass-backwards logic I've ever heard in my life.
Every game that's played on battlenet is a function of two dependent variables: skill and balance. If you don't know one, it is mathematically impossible to calculate the other. This is an undeniable common sense fact.
If you don't know what the balance is, you can't calculate a player's relative "skill." After you've falsely and incorrectly assumed you know what a players skill is, you can't use that number to somehow assess the balance of the game. It makes no fucking sense!
Am I the only one who sees this? Let me break it down to kindergarten level for you...
Let's say Idra and MC play 10 games together. MC wins 6, Idra wins 4.
Now... did MC win more because of balance or because of skill? YOU CAN'T KNOW THAT SIMPLY FROM THE WIN/LOSS STATISTICS! No matter how many millions of games were played, it would be absolutely impossible to know if MC was winning more because of skill or balance. You cannot calculate EITHER with win ratios. And so long as they are both dependent and unknown variables, you won't ever, ever, be able to figure them out independently.
Is Blizzard really this stupid, or do they assume everyone else is?
You're right, but then I have a question to ask you. How do you measure balance at all? So many people on TL talk about how BroodWar was perfectly balanced, but according to your logic, this would never be the case. And judging by what Artosis said on the last SOTG, none of that was dependent on player skill or racial balance, but map balance. "The Legend of the Fall" means Protoss win more in the Fall because there are more Protoss favored maps in the Fall? That doesn't sound particularly balanced.
I mean I understand the general principle that you cannot balance in a vacuum without maps, but if you are balancing around maps then doesn't racial balance become negligible? If there is a huge imbalance, then if you make a certain race favored on a map, then it might even things out so that players of equal skill will have a 50% win ratio. All of that assumes that you know what skill level everyone is, which you point we do not.
So what is the answer then? How do you do this when you can never accurately judge how much skill someone has?
In a perfect world, players of equal skill levels exerting equal effort has equal chance to win but that will never happen. The closest thing would be to balance around the highest skill level, have a good solid base (which we don't have since P/Z are both, at least, not as developed as T) then use maps to smooth out metagame changes. SC1 wasn't balanced, and for years BW wasn't considered balanced either but eventually as progamer skill ceiling rose balance was acceptable and Korean mapmakers were really good at making maps that solved small problems. We probably shouldn't expect a balanced game until the Protoss expansion is out. Normally this would be fine but it's annoying as fuck to see the game Blizz wants to be next great esports not complete while thousands of dollars and people's careers on the line in a really volatile industry.
On September 23 2011 06:07 Cyrak wrote: I think the most disturbing part of this post is the implication that balancing for all skill levels is something that should be a highly rated priority.
Balancing for all skill levels is pretty important. The problem for Blizzard, though, is just that. The range of skills can be and is so great that the smallest change might end up with an incredible impact.
Small minor things like a few seconds build time increases for Barracks might not reflect much in the lower leagues, but it impacts and changes the timings of build orders in higher leagues. The 30 second increase to Warp Gate tech (several patches ago) doesn't seem like much in most of Bronze - Gold because the player skills don't revolve heavily around minute timings, but it created a huge impact of 4gate timing pushes in Plat and Diamond.
Should it be a highly rated priority? Maybe, depending on the perspective you're taking.
Blizzard is probably focusing more energy into getting Heart of the Swarm ready, instead of bothering too much with the ladder balance. It's just a speculation, but one that makes sense for me.
But even if it were Blizzard's number one priority, it's not something they can willy nilly tweak around as often as they would like. During the Beta, patches by the dozens were being dished out left and right, but now that the game has entered what is more or less a stable state, they're just wary of pushing out balance patches because it might just overturn the balance they've set up already.
On September 23 2011 05:52 ChriseC wrote: there are some things that i dont understand
ladder system tries to keep you to 50% win/lose ratio, so isnt it representitive at all?
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
There really should be a link that is required viewing for every new TL member to the Blizzcon in which they explain their way of taking away that. Oh, and the squillions of other posts that ask exactly the same question.
Basically, Blizzard has a fucking huge equation to remove the matchmaking system from the equation (allegedly), among other things. So NO, the 50% win/lose ratio SHOULDN'T have any impact.
Without the formula to examine, there's no fucking reason to believe that.
On September 23 2011 06:05 Corrosive wrote: I don't understand. They're using ladder for stastics, but its pretty widely known that---
people drop people cheese frequently just for fun or a quick win people leave for no reason people do stupid strategies just for fun people generally mess around even in high leagues
so how does this show balance proof?
Well across a large enough sample (which Blizz has access to, I'm just not sure what time period this particular set of data comes from) the stuff you listed becomes irrelevant.
anyone able to find the first "balance snapshot" that blizz did, like in december or something? id be interesting in seeing the comparison between those numbers.
On September 23 2011 05:52 ChriseC wrote: there are some things that i dont understand
ladder system tries to keep you to 50% win/lose ratio, so isnt it representitive at all?
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
There really should be a link that is required viewing for every new TL member to the Blizzcon in which they explain their way of taking away that. Oh, and the squillions of other posts that ask exactly the same question.
Basically, Blizzard has a fucking huge equation to remove the matchmaking system from the equation (allegedly), among other things. So NO, the 50% win/lose ratio SHOULDN'T have any impact.
Without the formula to examine, there's no fucking reason to believe that.
You can find the formula, look for Blizzcon 2010 then search for part 3(?) of the panel section, AFAIK, then pause when they show the formula and take it down. Nope, it meant literally nothing to me either.
Protoss are struggling... I don't really think i believe the PvZ in Korea Masters + GM... I wish they could just do a top 100 world of each race and take THEIR data...
On September 23 2011 06:05 Corrosive wrote: I don't understand. They're using ladder for stastics, but its pretty widely known that---
people drop people cheese frequently just for fun or a quick win people leave for no reason people do stupid strategies just for fun people generally mess around even in high leagues
so how does this show balance proof?
It's intended to say "look, we compiled a ton of data and this is what it shows". I'd argue that any faults in their calculations come from their "true win" percentage. They called it "extremely complex math", no doubt to scare away almost everyone. I'd be interested in seeing and making sense of the equations and seeing the assumptions they make.
Anyway, I'm sure their reasoning at least on people dropping is that so few people do it that it isn't statistically noticeable OR they're able to exclude data points for games lasting less than a minute.
Anywho, given the situation in Korea: we can always look to the Koreans to see how we can abuse in-game mechanics. Take the 2 rax marine/scv all-in in TvZ last fall - it was clearly broken, most TvZ's in GSL were marine/scv all-ins, and terrans dominated. It wasn't just them who figured it out - it clearly spread far enough that the win/loss percentages were significantly affected (obviously since I'm not Blizzard, I can't say this for sure, but it's a reasonable assumption given their system). Anyway, we saw Koreans abuse BFH at MLG, 1-1-1 in a ton of Protoss matches, close-spawn bunker rushes on Xel Naga, pylon and supply depot blocks on ramps, etc. Koreans aren't the only ones to exploit imbalances to their advantage, but they're clearly better at it. I feel that Masters/GM should be a better indicator of balance since these players are more likely to follow tournament scenes and metagame shifts. It lowers the sample pool significantly, but the better players will give a better indicator of where the balance is.
On September 23 2011 05:52 ChriseC wrote: there are some things that i dont understand
ladder system tries to keep you to 50% win/lose ratio, so isnt it representitive at all?
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
There really should be a link that is required viewing for every new TL member to the Blizzcon in which they explain their way of taking away that. Oh, and the squillions of other posts that ask exactly the same question.
Basically, Blizzard has a fucking huge equation to remove the matchmaking system from the equation (allegedly), among other things. So NO, the 50% win/lose ratio SHOULDN'T have any impact.
Without the formula to examine, there's no fucking reason to believe that.
You can find the formula, look for Blizzcon 2010 then search for part 3(?) of the panel section, AFAIK, then pause when they show the formula and take it down. Nope, it meant literally nothing to me either.
At 2.50.
It looks (to me) like a Bayesian-esque sort of analysis.
The basic process appears iterative; they start with a prior distribution (probably flat) and produce a posterior distribution by feeding it the result of a game, by using the win-percentage probability distributions for each player, for each race. Note that this doesn't need to know any true sense of skill, it just needs to know the outcome of the match and the predicted win percentages for those players - the latter of which obviouly exist (and must be reasonably accurate) as it uses them for match-making.
The process is repeated over and over, adding the results of all the thousand (millions?) of matches taking place on Battlenet, with the previous posterior distribution becoming the new prior distribution each time the process is run. Eventually one hopes the distribution converges on a distribution from which the win percentages can then be simply extracted, as a simple function of league level.
I will have to think about this some more, but this makes sense and I think should work.
I don't think they are trying to 'scare' anyone away, as some other posters seem to imply. I think they don't want to have to wheel their math-guy out to give a series of long, dry seminars to explain Bayesian analysis. Personally, given how the match-maker seems to work pretty well, I'm inclined to take their word for this process working to the level of accuracy (+/-5%) that they claim.
If Blizzard really feels PvT is balanced or that Protoss even close to OP then its time to make the dreaded switch to Terran... Sigh I wish they would post recent tourney stats... Its all about the Terrans that utilize EMP, the lower level even Masters Terrans don't. Seperate GM from Masters and lets see what it looks like because Masters is closer to diamond than GM as far as competition goes. Anyways, off to learn Terran now so sad =\ GL Protoss
On September 23 2011 04:59 Wuster wrote: I think you could argue that the bottom of Code S really isn't that different from the middle/top of Code A. And the balance in Code A has steadily gotten better, while before it was the opposite, with Code S having the better ratio and Code A being Terran dominant. So it make sense that Code S would eventually become Terran dominant, just like looking at Code A today gives hope that Code S will again diversify.
Well I'm not sure the "diversity" in code A will last long, we don't even know if there will be a protoss from code A in the up/down.
Hence me saying hopeful, we know already that there are only going to be 2 or 3 terrans advancing to up/downs this season. Protoss has their own issues with Zerg, true, but that points more to Protoss being UP than Terran being OP (I mean there's no T in PvZ so what else can you conclude if P sucks in PvT and PvZ in GSL anyways).
Funny enough all 4 Protoss in the Ro16 are facing Zergs.
On September 23 2011 03:35 willz22912 wrote: I'd just like to chime in for everyone who is trying to use GSL as a sort of balance discussion topic. While GSL is generally accepted as the highest level SC2 tournament in the world, with the best players, it can't be used exclusively on it's own without support as some unquestionable fact.
The fact is that people seem to forget that the GSL is in itself not perfect as a tournament or as a structure. Do we not all forget the open seasons and the difference it is in terms of skill level today, it took a long time for certain "average" players who everyone didn't think belonged in code S to fall down with the up/down format.
Remember how the ro32 is set up for both Code A and S. Before in Code S, the bottom two in groups were always sent into the up and downs with 1 person from code A coming up, with the top 2 of those 3 players making it back into Code S. Now the turnover is better for code A -> S but still the same for Code S. There is still only 8 people out of a 32 man tournament that could potentially lose Code S every season. Then there's code A Ro32 which is just a bo3 and if you lose you are knocked into code B which everyone knows is insanely difficulty to get back into code A.
My final point regarding the GSL is the group structure in ro32 code S. While people cannot handle multiple bo3s because of time constraints, this leaves us with the much worse outcome in terms of player potential, 2 bo1s and a 3rd potentially for a tiebreaker. Will you not agree that a single bo1 is not enough of a factor to determine who is the better player? Nerves aside in a tournament setting, this also increases the chances of cheese being seen in people's strategies since it's only a bo1 and if you cheese well, you generally have a high chance of just straight up winning which is why cheese is so popular. And I think most people would generally agree that a cheese game is 1) not fun for viewers, 2) not indicative of a players true skill. Remember IMmvp in GSL March? He got baneling busted twice in a row by July in an "upset" and fell to up and downs, and then lost in up and downs to two protosses and fell into code A. Now look at him, 3 time GSL champion with another high chance of winning a 4th title. Do people not slump and do weird results happen in the group stages. Yes and yes. Don't keep using GSL as a stand alone #s game since even out of 20 Terrans, at most 8 can go into up and downs every season, so getting the GSL to be racially balanced will take a long time regardless of game balance because of the tournament format.
This makes absolutely no sense and here's why. If everything were as random as you say, ie Bo1s not a good indicator who is better, by skill or by power of having picked the right race, all races would fare equally well. It's random after all, a matter of chance. How is it that Terran always seems to get lucky? Why has Terran representation in the GSL consistently gone higher and higher every season?
No, what he is saying is that even if the game becomes balanced now after 1.4 or subsequent patches, it will take more than one season, probably like 3 for the terran number to go down to the appropriate ammount. He's saying that the number of races in GSL will lag behind the actual current balance.
We already know that. But there's nothing in the balance changes that actually significantly effects Terran. So we're stuck with this situation for the foreseeable future, and for a good while afterwards, even if Terran eventually gets balanced.
Blue flame hellion and Barrack build time weren't significant nerfs? GSL is still playing with the old patch, let's wait and see before we complain that nothing changed for Terran.
If you want to see the balance shifting, you have to look at Code A, and of the qualifiers, only 2 were Terran who faced a TvT to get in. Code A is much more diverse overall as well. While, as stated before Code S is set up to keep people in it (Artosis mentioned that having consistent players in Code S lets Gom give them a surrogate salary).
I think you could argue that the bottom of Code S really isn't that different from the middle/top of Code A. And the balance in Code A has steadily gotten better, while before it was the opposite, with Code S having the better ratio and Code A being Terran dominant. So it make sense that Code S would eventually become Terran dominant, just like looking at Code A today gives hope that Code S will again diversify.
Just look at the list of players who have gone from Code S to Code B, I'll skip the Protoss because so many people will insist they fell out due to imbalance. Maka, Leenock, Byun, Kyrix, TheWind, Boxer (if he's not Code A quality what does that mean to everyone who placed behind him at MLG and NASL?), Jinro (a former MLG champion), ect. Code S and A don't have a huge skill divide except maybe at the very top (MVP cruising through Code A when he got knocked down), so it's not all doom and gloom.
BF Hellion nerf only really effects TvT. They're worse against Marines now, but they're still just as effective vs. Zerglings, and it only takes a +1 upgrade for them to two-shot Drones like before.
And 5 in game seconds is going to effect what exactly? 11/11? Come on... Terrans in GSL out-macroing Zerg and trading armies with incredible cost efficiency until the Zerg can't keep up? 5 seconds is going to change that?
You'd be surprised, 5 seconds was enough to kill Reapers after all. Getting +1 for your BFH sounds trivial, but that requires an armory, meaning to get the same 2-shotting on drones you are investing a lot, also delaying things quite a bit.
Think of the time/resource investement especially if your plan is Bio instead of Mech. I would certainly expect much fewer BFH drops to harass while massing up a huge bio-ball ala MGL Anaheim.
On September 23 2011 05:41 mr_chapy wrote: these numbers are completely meaningless. Well the M+GM may hold some slight significance but even those are not completely usefull in regards to balance. In balance discussions the only thing that really matters is Top Of The Wolrd level of play, like gsl code S , maybe code A and some top noch Foreign tournaments. I would like to see those numbers..... hey...20+terrans in code S... thats a meaningfull number....
They have said that they look at the results of top tournaments... several times they have said that
Its even on the Screenshot, they say that this is not the final say on balance.
They said just the opposite.
At Blizzcon they said, and I quote. "We don't tend to look too much at tournament results". They also said that, in regards to balance: "We play our game a lot. Everyone who works on balance is a diamond random player. So we get to see all the match-ups and all the maps."
On September 23 2011 04:59 Wuster wrote: I think you could argue that the bottom of Code S really isn't that different from the middle/top of Code A. And the balance in Code A has steadily gotten better, while before it was the opposite, with Code S having the better ratio and Code A being Terran dominant. So it make sense that Code S would eventually become Terran dominant, just like looking at Code A today gives hope that Code S will again diversify.
Well I'm not sure the "diversity" in code A will last long, we don't even know if there will be a protoss from code A in the up/down.
Hence me saying hopeful, we know already that there are only going to be 2 or 3 terrans advancing to up/downs this season. Protoss has their own issues with Zerg, true, but that points more to Protoss being UP than Terran being OP (I mean there's no T in PvZ so what else can you conclude if P sucks in PvT and PvZ in GSL anyways).
Funny enough all 4 Protoss in the Ro16 are facing Zergs.
On September 23 2011 03:35 willz22912 wrote: I'd just like to chime in for everyone who is trying to use GSL as a sort of balance discussion topic. While GSL is generally accepted as the highest level SC2 tournament in the world, with the best players, it can't be used exclusively on it's own without support as some unquestionable fact.
The fact is that people seem to forget that the GSL is in itself not perfect as a tournament or as a structure. Do we not all forget the open seasons and the difference it is in terms of skill level today, it took a long time for certain "average" players who everyone didn't think belonged in code S to fall down with the up/down format.
Remember how the ro32 is set up for both Code A and S. Before in Code S, the bottom two in groups were always sent into the up and downs with 1 person from code A coming up, with the top 2 of those 3 players making it back into Code S. Now the turnover is better for code A -> S but still the same for Code S. There is still only 8 people out of a 32 man tournament that could potentially lose Code S every season. Then there's code A Ro32 which is just a bo3 and if you lose you are knocked into code B which everyone knows is insanely difficulty to get back into code A.
My final point regarding the GSL is the group structure in ro32 code S. While people cannot handle multiple bo3s because of time constraints, this leaves us with the much worse outcome in terms of player potential, 2 bo1s and a 3rd potentially for a tiebreaker. Will you not agree that a single bo1 is not enough of a factor to determine who is the better player? Nerves aside in a tournament setting, this also increases the chances of cheese being seen in people's strategies since it's only a bo1 and if you cheese well, you generally have a high chance of just straight up winning which is why cheese is so popular. And I think most people would generally agree that a cheese game is 1) not fun for viewers, 2) not indicative of a players true skill. Remember IMmvp in GSL March? He got baneling busted twice in a row by July in an "upset" and fell to up and downs, and then lost in up and downs to two protosses and fell into code A. Now look at him, 3 time GSL champion with another high chance of winning a 4th title. Do people not slump and do weird results happen in the group stages. Yes and yes. Don't keep using GSL as a stand alone #s game since even out of 20 Terrans, at most 8 can go into up and downs every season, so getting the GSL to be racially balanced will take a long time regardless of game balance because of the tournament format.
This makes absolutely no sense and here's why. If everything were as random as you say, ie Bo1s not a good indicator who is better, by skill or by power of having picked the right race, all races would fare equally well. It's random after all, a matter of chance. How is it that Terran always seems to get lucky? Why has Terran representation in the GSL consistently gone higher and higher every season?
No, what he is saying is that even if the game becomes balanced now after 1.4 or subsequent patches, it will take more than one season, probably like 3 for the terran number to go down to the appropriate ammount. He's saying that the number of races in GSL will lag behind the actual current balance.
We already know that. But there's nothing in the balance changes that actually significantly effects Terran. So we're stuck with this situation for the foreseeable future, and for a good while afterwards, even if Terran eventually gets balanced.
Blue flame hellion and Barrack build time weren't significant nerfs? GSL is still playing with the old patch, let's wait and see before we complain that nothing changed for Terran.
If you want to see the balance shifting, you have to look at Code A, and of the qualifiers, only 2 were Terran who faced a TvT to get in. Code A is much more diverse overall as well. While, as stated before Code S is set up to keep people in it (Artosis mentioned that having consistent players in Code S lets Gom give them a surrogate salary).
I think you could argue that the bottom of Code S really isn't that different from the middle/top of Code A. And the balance in Code A has steadily gotten better, while before it was the opposite, with Code S having the better ratio and Code A being Terran dominant. So it make sense that Code S would eventually become Terran dominant, just like looking at Code A today gives hope that Code S will again diversify.
Just look at the list of players who have gone from Code S to Code B, I'll skip the Protoss because so many people will insist they fell out due to imbalance. Maka, Leenock, Byun, Kyrix, TheWind, Boxer (if he's not Code A quality what does that mean to everyone who placed behind him at MLG and NASL?), Jinro (a former MLG champion), ect. Code S and A don't have a huge skill divide except maybe at the very top (MVP cruising through Code A when he got knocked down), so it's not all doom and gloom.
BF Hellion nerf only really effects TvT. They're worse against Marines now, but they're still just as effective vs. Zerglings, and it only takes a +1 upgrade for them to two-shot Drones like before.
And 5 in game seconds is going to effect what exactly? 11/11? Come on... Terrans in GSL out-macroing Zerg and trading armies with incredible cost efficiency until the Zerg can't keep up? 5 seconds is going to change that?
You'd be surprised, 5 seconds was enough to kill Reapers after all. Getting +1 for your BFH sounds trivial, but that requires an armory, meaning to get the same 2-shotting on drones you are investing a lot, also delaying things quite a bit.
Think of the time/resource investement especially if your plan is Bio instead of Mech. I would certainly expect much fewer BFH drops to harass while massing up a huge bio-ball ala MGL Anaheim.
The reason reapers died off isn't because of any 5 second timing change. It's because reaper speed now requires a factory and you require a supply depot before you can build a barracks...
The point of statistics is to be able to make decisions using facts and not feelings. Discrediting statistics without acknowledging this is... wait for it... dumb.
If Blizzard's goal in releasing these numbers is to perform damage control, then they are right to do so: as most of us reading this are not M/GM Koreans, our experience is going to (in aggregate) resemble these numbers more than GSL Code S.
That being said, and this for statistical purposes is anecdotal (read: meaningless), I am not playing actively because I find playing as Protoss to be unnecessarily frustrating for reasons that have been elaborated on elsewhere.
Blizzard's damage control should tell me that, since I am not Korean M/GM, there is still a good time to be had. However, while adversity builds character and all that, I am not interested in ice-skating uphill (hat tip to Blade). In my case, at least, their efforts are wasted.
On September 23 2011 05:41 mr_chapy wrote: these numbers are completely meaningless. Well the M+GM may hold some slight significance but even those are not completely usefull in regards to balance. In balance discussions the only thing that really matters is Top Of The Wolrd level of play, like gsl code S , maybe code A and some top noch Foreign tournaments. I would like to see those numbers..... hey...20+terrans in code S... thats a meaningfull number....
They have said that they look at the results of top tournaments... several times they have said that
Its even on the Screenshot, they say that this is not the final say on balance.
They said just the opposite.
At Blizzcon they said, and I quote. "We don't tend to look too much at tournament results". They also said that, in regards to balance: "We play our game a lot. Everyone who works on balance is a diamond random player. So we get to see all the match-ups and all the maps."
The StarCraft II developers feel that it’s important to take a look at the various tools that are employed in defining balance. At first, each one of these tools looks like it could be the one answer you need -- but it becomes clear over time that no single tool provides the perfect solution to balance. Instead, it takes multiple tools and a complete understanding of what those tools tell the designers. So what tools do the developers use?
Player Feedback
Player feedback is perhaps the best tool available to the development team, as it allows for many voices to be heard across a variety of skill levels and experiences. This method also represents the largest pool of players. While data is a great tool, raw stats don’t qualify what players are experiencing from their perspectives. By reading the forums and getting feedback from the community team, the developers can gain insight into how the community is playing the game, what units they're using, and what difficulties or successes they're having.
There are drawbacks to utilizing player feedback exclusively. Sometimes the loudest of voices aren't portraying their experiences accurately, and the many can easily drown out a single voice that has different, yet important information the development team needs to make balancing decisions.
Pro Feedback
Pro players represent another important balancing tool to the development team. These players have a high skill level and understand the minute details of the game. They are also a great resource for critical feedback. On the downside, these players are generally very focused on one particular race and represent a very small subset of the community. When taking these players into account, it’s important to note that they may not know exactly why they lost a match -- whether it was due to their own error or an actual imbalance to the race, ability, or unit they are using.
Tournaments
Tournaments can be a great resource for observing games played at a very high skill level. When watching these matches, however, it’s important to look at the games individually and not just the end results. A talented player like Fruit Dealer may just be so good that he was going to win no matter what race he played. However, each game can give some insight into where the holes within the balance might lie. Players in these tournaments are generally very good at finding these holes and taking advantage of them, and it’s the development team’s job to keep an eye out and determine if something needs to be changed. The weakness in looking only at tournaments lies in knowing that there’s no way to be certain that matches are equal. All it really takes is a single poor performance to keep a top player from progressing.
Play the Games You Make
There’s no better way to see what players are experiencing firsthand than to play the game yourself. It’s a good way to get into the trenches, analyze gameplay, and find out what’s fun, what’s not fun, what tactics work and don’t work, and so on. However, while the development team consists of players of every skill level, the team is only so large -- and even with additional feedback from within the company, it can sometimes take time before the next new strategy gets to our team.
Spreadsheets
Spreadsheets are a great tool for looking at straight damage numbers, how fast or slow units are made, how often, what combinations of units are used, unit costs, and more. What spreadsheets don’t tell the developers is the how or why. While designers can take a look at the sizes of armies and make adjustments to building times , spreadsheets can’t really take into account pathing, terrain, micromanagement, unit size, random target acquisition, and other factors which only occur in a real game.
Make Combat
Make Combat is a great in-house simulation tool that allows the development team to run various scenarios with units to see how they stack up against each other, but running one simulation isn’t enough. Simulations need to be run multiple times before any sort of pattern begins to take shape -- if there’s even a pattern to be seen. Unlike a spreadsheet, Make Combat can take a look at unit pathing and can even allow micro to be employed if the developers wants to drill down a little bit more. What the simulation doesn’t do well is take into account all the myriad combinations of units or terrain. While it’s a handy tool, it’s only one of many, and results can’t always be taken at face value.
EPT
