|
60/40 is still "acceptable" for Blizzard? Do they realize that if 100,000 games per day are played within a 60/40 matchup, 10,000 of those games should have actually been won by the other player? They certainly have a strange definition of Balance.
|
So accurate for the state of PvZ. I really think koreans have it all figured out, and is why they are making toss look very bad (take the state of GSL now for instance). Over here, however, the strategies the koreans use are very slow to come over, and protosses still dominate over here. So any future protoss buffs will help in the GSL, but that would make it even worse for all the other countries!
|
As I have my problems against Protoss and even more against Zerg I know its completely my fault to begin with as the Koreans show how its done.
I can't say I'd like a Protoss or Zerg buff but the game should be balanced at the highest level of competition which is Korea and all others have to step up their game, because they do not lose because of balance , they lose cause of their mistakes and not enough abuse of their races' strength.
|
On September 23 2011 13:45 mTw|NarutO wrote:
As I have my problems against Protoss and even more against Zerg I know its completely my fault to begin with as the Koreans show how its done.
I can't say I'd like a Protoss or Zerg buff but the game should be balanced at the highest level of competition which is Korea and all others have to step up their game, because they do not lose because of balance , they lose cause of their mistakes and not enough abuse of their races' strength.
well you got to remember that the 1/1/1 is executed the best, and the most popular in korea. And not only was it insanely hard to stop, but also the threat of it was there which altered a lot of the meta game.
Plus, Protoss is also on the end of a meta game shift. Was only a couple months (MVP in code A) where Terran were struggling in the matchup and nothing has really changed since then.
Blizzard won't nerf terran (if they do) for a long time (couple months).
|
good god those zerg numbers
|
On September 23 2011 10:18 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 09:38 Channel Pressure wrote:On September 23 2011 02:24 Brotocol wrote:On September 23 2011 02:21 Soma.bokforlag wrote:
matchmaking doesnt mean that a platinum terran gets matched against diamond zerg and toss and gold terran.
if terran is OP this would show even in stats from lower leagues
this is of course in the case that balance works the same across leagues, which it doesnt. it is extremely hard for blizzard to balance the game on all levels. what do you do if its balanced for masters and lower? patch the game just for GM and e-sports? Misconception. What it really means to "balance for the highest level of play" is that the strongest play must be balanced, but this should automatically scale down to all levels because skill levels are relative. If it's balanced for players that have skill levels of 150, then it should automatically ensure balance for skill level 5. Im glad somebody said this! I dont know where people get this false notion that balancing the game "at the highest level of play" (I don't even know what that means) is bad for everyone else. If the game is balanced at the highest level, it will logically be balanced at every level. Your skill/lack of skill is non-sequitur. This has been demonstrated in every competative game that has been patched, particularly broken "tiers" in fighting games. Actually no, that does not logically follow. Let us assume that "skill" is a quantity that can be objectively measured. Now, let us say you have a game that is perfectly balanced if both players have 100 skill. This means that, in games that 100 skill players play, they will each win ~50% of the time. Let's suppose that one of the races in the game has a strategy that requires 50 skill to execute. The other races can defend the strategy, but defending it requires 75 skill. If you don't yave 75 skill, you will lose to the strategy ~70% of the time. Now, the game is still perfectly balanced at the 100 skill level, because the defending player has enough skill to defend the strategy successfully. But at the 60 skill level, if you put two 60 skill players together, the one who has access to the 50-skill strat will consistently beat any player up to 75 skill. You might say that this is an artificial problem. But it isn't; this is reality, and it always has been for StarCraft. Rushes are that kind of strategy. Defending rushes is always harder than executing them. Defending rushes requires more skill than executing them. Early game timing attacks are the same way: defending requires more work. You have to scout. You have to know that the strategy exists. You have to see signs of the strategy, so you have to know what to scout for. And then you have to execute a defense of it. For 100 skill players, that's easy. For 60 skill players, it's beyond their current abilities. Therefore, they will consistently lose to 50 skill players. This is why rushes in lower leagues are common: because they are the most effective way to win when you don't have much skill. So no, balance for high level play does not "automatically scale down to all levels".
I already addressed this.
Everyone is dwelling on the expression "scales down." The entire point was that lower skill levels can be affected by balance/
So, when someone says "I'm only in diamond, bro, so balance doesn't affect me," that's wrong. It just affects you less consistently, so Blizzard should not take it as a reference for balance (they should use the highest level available).
However, if you lose to 1-1-1 in gold, you can't say "I'm in gold so I can't complain about 1-1-1," that's wrong.
Please view my previous posts on this matter (one of them is on page 1).
|
Interesting but balance needs to happen at the pro (Korean) level, not at the ladder level, because only the pros are exploiting the races closer to their full potential.
|
The buckets they are using are way too big. For example, under "All Leagues" they are including Bronze and Silver players. Win ratios at that level is almost completely irrelevant to the balance discussion.
|
People seem to forget that this is not Blizzards only tool to determen balance. As revealed at blizzcon last year they actually got at least 4 different tools including this one AND pro feedback. None of those 4 work on their own so they usually have 2 of those tools agree on an imbalance before they change something.
Also people who complain about the 60:40 ratio. I don't think blizzard consider the game balanced just because of a say 59:41 ratio but rather 60:40 is the level where their alarms goes off. It is the level where they can't just rely on quick metagame changes and must take action. Kaydium amulet was originally removed be course PvT had a 60:40 ratio at the time aswell.
|
On September 23 2011 14:09 Brotocol wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 10:18 NicolBolas wrote:On September 23 2011 09:38 Channel Pressure wrote:On September 23 2011 02:24 Brotocol wrote:On September 23 2011 02:21 Soma.bokforlag wrote:
matchmaking doesnt mean that a platinum terran gets matched against diamond zerg and toss and gold terran.
if terran is OP this would show even in stats from lower leagues
this is of course in the case that balance works the same across leagues, which it doesnt. it is extremely hard for blizzard to balance the game on all levels. what do you do if its balanced for masters and lower? patch the game just for GM and e-sports? Misconception. What it really means to "balance for the highest level of play" is that the strongest play must be balanced, but this should automatically scale down to all levels because skill levels are relative. If it's balanced for players that have skill levels of 150, then it should automatically ensure balance for skill level 5. Im glad somebody said this! I dont know where people get this false notion that balancing the game "at the highest level of play" (I don't even know what that means) is bad for everyone else. If the game is balanced at the highest level, it will logically be balanced at every level. Your skill/lack of skill is non-sequitur. This has been demonstrated in every competative game that has been patched, particularly broken "tiers" in fighting games. Actually no, that does not logically follow. Let us assume that "skill" is a quantity that can be objectively measured. Now, let us say you have a game that is perfectly balanced if both players have 100 skill. This means that, in games that 100 skill players play, they will each win ~50% of the time. Let's suppose that one of the races in the game has a strategy that requires 50 skill to execute. The other races can defend the strategy, but defending it requires 75 skill. If you don't yave 75 skill, you will lose to the strategy ~70% of the time. Now, the game is still perfectly balanced at the 100 skill level, because the defending player has enough skill to defend the strategy successfully. But at the 60 skill level, if you put two 60 skill players together, the one who has access to the 50-skill strat will consistently beat any player up to 75 skill. You might say that this is an artificial problem. But it isn't; this is reality, and it always has been for StarCraft. Rushes are that kind of strategy. Defending rushes is always harder than executing them. Defending rushes requires more skill than executing them. Early game timing attacks are the same way: defending requires more work. You have to scout. You have to know that the strategy exists. You have to see signs of the strategy, so you have to know what to scout for. And then you have to execute a defense of it. For 100 skill players, that's easy. For 60 skill players, it's beyond their current abilities. Therefore, they will consistently lose to 50 skill players. This is why rushes in lower leagues are common: because they are the most effective way to win when you don't have much skill. So no, balance for high level play does not "automatically scale down to all levels". I already addressed this. Everyone is dwelling on the expression "scales down." The entire point was that lower skill levels can be affected by balance/ So, when someone says "I'm only in diamond, bro, so balance doesn't affect me," that's wrong. It just affects you less consistently, so Blizzard should not take it as a reference for balance (they should use the highest level available). However, if you lose to 1-1-1 in gold, you can't say "I'm in gold so I can't complain about 1-1-1," that's wrong. Please view my previous posts on this matter (one of them is on page 1).
I find a lot of holes in your logic.
You can't complain about the 1-1-1 in gold league because nobody at that skill level will ever do it right. How can you ever balance a game where lower level players can not execute builds correctly, have almost no micro and constantly float minerals?
If a gold league Terran decides to 1-1-1 a Protoss, I am pretty sure the push will not come on time, nor will they have the number of units that they should've had. If the Protoss loses to that push, it is not because it's imbalance, because that push was NOT the 1-1-1. The Protoss would've stopped that push easily if he was any better.
|
5% difference is only used in stats class because it is hard to do homework problems with data with enough data points to get better then 5% confidence intervals.
Blizzard has millions of games available to gather data from if the game is balanced every match up should have a 50% win rate based on sample sizes that large a ladder that looks like this shows that imbalances exist we just are not being given the correct information to see where the imbalance comes from.
code S vs code A numbers discussions actually can show us an interesting trend 20 Terrans in code S and only 8 in code A shows the depressed win rate that Umpteen brought up that a skill 80 X player would look as good as a skill 85 Y player forcing skill 80 Y players to play skill 75 X players.
i feel that this can be used tentatively as evidence at the highest level at leave that terrans are given an edge(how often do we hear GREAT EMPS vs bad force fields)
A good question is where worry about balance do we even think is possible to balance the game at all skill levels do we cater to the ladders the majority of the pop or the vast minority that have to entertain thousands of people and actually provides revenue.
personally i feel you let ladders deal with imbalance and let them feel the rush of learning how to hold of a strategy, while allowing for an esport to exist at high levels.
|
|
|
On September 23 2011 14:54 K3Nyy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 14:09 Brotocol wrote:On September 23 2011 10:18 NicolBolas wrote:On September 23 2011 09:38 Channel Pressure wrote:On September 23 2011 02:24 Brotocol wrote:On September 23 2011 02:21 Soma.bokforlag wrote:
matchmaking doesnt mean that a platinum terran gets matched against diamond zerg and toss and gold terran.
if terran is OP this would show even in stats from lower leagues
this is of course in the case that balance works the same across leagues, which it doesnt. it is extremely hard for blizzard to balance the game on all levels. what do you do if its balanced for masters and lower? patch the game just for GM and e-sports? Misconception. What it really means to "balance for the highest level of play" is that the strongest play must be balanced, but this should automatically scale down to all levels because skill levels are relative. If it's balanced for players that have skill levels of 150, then it should automatically ensure balance for skill level 5. Im glad somebody said this! I dont know where people get this false notion that balancing the game "at the highest level of play" (I don't even know what that means) is bad for everyone else. If the game is balanced at the highest level, it will logically be balanced at every level. Your skill/lack of skill is non-sequitur. This has been demonstrated in every competative game that has been patched, particularly broken "tiers" in fighting games. Actually no, that does not logically follow. Let us assume that "skill" is a quantity that can be objectively measured. Now, let us say you have a game that is perfectly balanced if both players have 100 skill. This means that, in games that 100 skill players play, they will each win ~50% of the time. Let's suppose that one of the races in the game has a strategy that requires 50 skill to execute. The other races can defend the strategy, but defending it requires 75 skill. If you don't yave 75 skill, you will lose to the strategy ~70% of the time. Now, the game is still perfectly balanced at the 100 skill level, because the defending player has enough skill to defend the strategy successfully. But at the 60 skill level, if you put two 60 skill players together, the one who has access to the 50-skill strat will consistently beat any player up to 75 skill. You might say that this is an artificial problem. But it isn't; this is reality, and it always has been for StarCraft. Rushes are that kind of strategy. Defending rushes is always harder than executing them. Defending rushes requires more skill than executing them. Early game timing attacks are the same way: defending requires more work. You have to scout. You have to know that the strategy exists. You have to see signs of the strategy, so you have to know what to scout for. And then you have to execute a defense of it. For 100 skill players, that's easy. For 60 skill players, it's beyond their current abilities. Therefore, they will consistently lose to 50 skill players. This is why rushes in lower leagues are common: because they are the most effective way to win when you don't have much skill. So no, balance for high level play does not "automatically scale down to all levels". I already addressed this. Everyone is dwelling on the expression "scales down." The entire point was that lower skill levels can be affected by balance/ So, when someone says "I'm only in diamond, bro, so balance doesn't affect me," that's wrong. It just affects you less consistently, so Blizzard should not take it as a reference for balance (they should use the highest level available). However, if you lose to 1-1-1 in gold, you can't say "I'm in gold so I can't complain about 1-1-1," that's wrong. Please view my previous posts on this matter (one of them is on page 1). I find a lot of holes in your logic. You can't complain about the 1-1-1 in gold league because nobody at that skill level will ever do it right. How can you ever balance a game where lower level players can not execute builds correctly, have almost no micro and constantly float minerals? If a gold league Terran decides to 1-1-1 a Protoss, I am pretty sure the push will not come on time, nor will they have the number of units that they should've had. If the Protoss loses to that push, it is not because it's imbalance, because that push was NOT the 1-1-1. The Protoss would've stopped that push easily if he was any better.
Yea, if he was much better than the T, such that the P player played properly and the T botches a 1-1-1. That doesn't sound balanced to me.
Balance can affect lower leagues. It just doesn't consistently affect them. But it's possible to lose to an imbalance.
|
On September 23 2011 15:08 Brotocol wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 14:54 K3Nyy wrote:On September 23 2011 14:09 Brotocol wrote:On September 23 2011 10:18 NicolBolas wrote:On September 23 2011 09:38 Channel Pressure wrote:On September 23 2011 02:24 Brotocol wrote:On September 23 2011 02:21 Soma.bokforlag wrote:
matchmaking doesnt mean that a platinum terran gets matched against diamond zerg and toss and gold terran.
if terran is OP this would show even in stats from lower leagues
this is of course in the case that balance works the same across leagues, which it doesnt. it is extremely hard for blizzard to balance the game on all levels. what do you do if its balanced for masters and lower? patch the game just for GM and e-sports? Misconception. What it really means to "balance for the highest level of play" is that the strongest play must be balanced, but this should automatically scale down to all levels because skill levels are relative. If it's balanced for players that have skill levels of 150, then it should automatically ensure balance for skill level 5. Im glad somebody said this! I dont know where people get this false notion that balancing the game "at the highest level of play" (I don't even know what that means) is bad for everyone else. If the game is balanced at the highest level, it will logically be balanced at every level. Your skill/lack of skill is non-sequitur. This has been demonstrated in every competative game that has been patched, particularly broken "tiers" in fighting games. Actually no, that does not logically follow. Let us assume that "skill" is a quantity that can be objectively measured. Now, let us say you have a game that is perfectly balanced if both players have 100 skill. This means that, in games that 100 skill players play, they will each win ~50% of the time. Let's suppose that one of the races in the game has a strategy that requires 50 skill to execute. The other races can defend the strategy, but defending it requires 75 skill. If you don't yave 75 skill, you will lose to the strategy ~70% of the time. Now, the game is still perfectly balanced at the 100 skill level, because the defending player has enough skill to defend the strategy successfully. But at the 60 skill level, if you put two 60 skill players together, the one who has access to the 50-skill strat will consistently beat any player up to 75 skill. You might say that this is an artificial problem. But it isn't; this is reality, and it always has been for StarCraft. Rushes are that kind of strategy. Defending rushes is always harder than executing them. Defending rushes requires more skill than executing them. Early game timing attacks are the same way: defending requires more work. You have to scout. You have to know that the strategy exists. You have to see signs of the strategy, so you have to know what to scout for. And then you have to execute a defense of it. For 100 skill players, that's easy. For 60 skill players, it's beyond their current abilities. Therefore, they will consistently lose to 50 skill players. This is why rushes in lower leagues are common: because they are the most effective way to win when you don't have much skill. So no, balance for high level play does not "automatically scale down to all levels". I already addressed this. Everyone is dwelling on the expression "scales down." The entire point was that lower skill levels can be affected by balance/ So, when someone says "I'm only in diamond, bro, so balance doesn't affect me," that's wrong. It just affects you less consistently, so Blizzard should not take it as a reference for balance (they should use the highest level available). However, if you lose to 1-1-1 in gold, you can't say "I'm in gold so I can't complain about 1-1-1," that's wrong. Please view my previous posts on this matter (one of them is on page 1). I find a lot of holes in your logic. You can't complain about the 1-1-1 in gold league because nobody at that skill level will ever do it right. How can you ever balance a game where lower level players can not execute builds correctly, have almost no micro and constantly float minerals? If a gold league Terran decides to 1-1-1 a Protoss, I am pretty sure the push will not come on time, nor will they have the number of units that they should've had. If the Protoss loses to that push, it is not because it's imbalance, because that push was NOT the 1-1-1. The Protoss would've stopped that push easily if he was any better. Yea, if he was much better than the T, such that the P player played properly and the T botches a 1-1-1. That doesn't sound balanced to me. Balance can affect lower leagues. It just doesn't consistently affect them. But it's possible to lose to an imbalance.
lower level players have tonnes and tonnes of flaw and mistake in their gameplay. balance shud be the last thing they need to focus to.
|
On September 23 2011 15:08 Brotocol wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 14:54 K3Nyy wrote:On September 23 2011 14:09 Brotocol wrote:On September 23 2011 10:18 NicolBolas wrote:On September 23 2011 09:38 Channel Pressure wrote:On September 23 2011 02:24 Brotocol wrote:On September 23 2011 02:21 Soma.bokforlag wrote:
matchmaking doesnt mean that a platinum terran gets matched against diamond zerg and toss and gold terran.
if terran is OP this would show even in stats from lower leagues
this is of course in the case that balance works the same across leagues, which it doesnt. it is extremely hard for blizzard to balance the game on all levels. what do you do if its balanced for masters and lower? patch the game just for GM and e-sports? Misconception. What it really means to "balance for the highest level of play" is that the strongest play must be balanced, but this should automatically scale down to all levels because skill levels are relative. If it's balanced for players that have skill levels of 150, then it should automatically ensure balance for skill level 5. Im glad somebody said this! I dont know where people get this false notion that balancing the game "at the highest level of play" (I don't even know what that means) is bad for everyone else. If the game is balanced at the highest level, it will logically be balanced at every level. Your skill/lack of skill is non-sequitur. This has been demonstrated in every competative game that has been patched, particularly broken "tiers" in fighting games. Actually no, that does not logically follow. Let us assume that "skill" is a quantity that can be objectively measured. Now, let us say you have a game that is perfectly balanced if both players have 100 skill. This means that, in games that 100 skill players play, they will each win ~50% of the time. Let's suppose that one of the races in the game has a strategy that requires 50 skill to execute. The other races can defend the strategy, but defending it requires 75 skill. If you don't yave 75 skill, you will lose to the strategy ~70% of the time. Now, the game is still perfectly balanced at the 100 skill level, because the defending player has enough skill to defend the strategy successfully. But at the 60 skill level, if you put two 60 skill players together, the one who has access to the 50-skill strat will consistently beat any player up to 75 skill. You might say that this is an artificial problem. But it isn't; this is reality, and it always has been for StarCraft. Rushes are that kind of strategy. Defending rushes is always harder than executing them. Defending rushes requires more skill than executing them. Early game timing attacks are the same way: defending requires more work. You have to scout. You have to know that the strategy exists. You have to see signs of the strategy, so you have to know what to scout for. And then you have to execute a defense of it. For 100 skill players, that's easy. For 60 skill players, it's beyond their current abilities. Therefore, they will consistently lose to 50 skill players. This is why rushes in lower leagues are common: because they are the most effective way to win when you don't have much skill. So no, balance for high level play does not "automatically scale down to all levels". I already addressed this. Everyone is dwelling on the expression "scales down." The entire point was that lower skill levels can be affected by balance/ So, when someone says "I'm only in diamond, bro, so balance doesn't affect me," that's wrong. It just affects you less consistently, so Blizzard should not take it as a reference for balance (they should use the highest level available). However, if you lose to 1-1-1 in gold, you can't say "I'm in gold so I can't complain about 1-1-1," that's wrong. Please view my previous posts on this matter (one of them is on page 1). I find a lot of holes in your logic. You can't complain about the 1-1-1 in gold league because nobody at that skill level will ever do it right. How can you ever balance a game where lower level players can not execute builds correctly, have almost no micro and constantly float minerals? If a gold league Terran decides to 1-1-1 a Protoss, I am pretty sure the push will not come on time, nor will they have the number of units that they should've had. If the Protoss loses to that push, it is not because it's imbalance, because that push was NOT the 1-1-1. The Protoss would've stopped that push easily if he was any better. Yea, if he was much better than the T, such that the P player played properly and the T botches a 1-1-1. That doesn't sound balanced to me. Balance can affect lower leagues. It just doesn't consistently affect them. But it's possible to lose to an imbalance.
i think imbalance affects lower leagues in a different way. it happens when an imba strat takes a lot less effort from one side to execute to a good enough level.
|
On September 23 2011 15:08 Brotocol wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 14:54 K3Nyy wrote:On September 23 2011 14:09 Brotocol wrote:On September 23 2011 10:18 NicolBolas wrote:On September 23 2011 09:38 Channel Pressure wrote:On September 23 2011 02:24 Brotocol wrote:On September 23 2011 02:21 Soma.bokforlag wrote:
matchmaking doesnt mean that a platinum terran gets matched against diamond zerg and toss and gold terran.
if terran is OP this would show even in stats from lower leagues
this is of course in the case that balance works the same across leagues, which it doesnt. it is extremely hard for blizzard to balance the game on all levels. what do you do if its balanced for masters and lower? patch the game just for GM and e-sports? Misconception. What it really means to "balance for the highest level of play" is that the strongest play must be balanced, but this should automatically scale down to all levels because skill levels are relative. If it's balanced for players that have skill levels of 150, then it should automatically ensure balance for skill level 5. Im glad somebody said this! I dont know where people get this false notion that balancing the game "at the highest level of play" (I don't even know what that means) is bad for everyone else. If the game is balanced at the highest level, it will logically be balanced at every level. Your skill/lack of skill is non-sequitur. This has been demonstrated in every competative game that has been patched, particularly broken "tiers" in fighting games. Actually no, that does not logically follow. Let us assume that "skill" is a quantity that can be objectively measured. Now, let us say you have a game that is perfectly balanced if both players have 100 skill. This means that, in games that 100 skill players play, they will each win ~50% of the time. Let's suppose that one of the races in the game has a strategy that requires 50 skill to execute. The other races can defend the strategy, but defending it requires 75 skill. If you don't yave 75 skill, you will lose to the strategy ~70% of the time. Now, the game is still perfectly balanced at the 100 skill level, because the defending player has enough skill to defend the strategy successfully. But at the 60 skill level, if you put two 60 skill players together, the one who has access to the 50-skill strat will consistently beat any player up to 75 skill. You might say that this is an artificial problem. But it isn't; this is reality, and it always has been for StarCraft. Rushes are that kind of strategy. Defending rushes is always harder than executing them. Defending rushes requires more skill than executing them. Early game timing attacks are the same way: defending requires more work. You have to scout. You have to know that the strategy exists. You have to see signs of the strategy, so you have to know what to scout for. And then you have to execute a defense of it. For 100 skill players, that's easy. For 60 skill players, it's beyond their current abilities. Therefore, they will consistently lose to 50 skill players. This is why rushes in lower leagues are common: because they are the most effective way to win when you don't have much skill. So no, balance for high level play does not "automatically scale down to all levels". I already addressed this. Everyone is dwelling on the expression "scales down." The entire point was that lower skill levels can be affected by balance/ So, when someone says "I'm only in diamond, bro, so balance doesn't affect me," that's wrong. It just affects you less consistently, so Blizzard should not take it as a reference for balance (they should use the highest level available). However, if you lose to 1-1-1 in gold, you can't say "I'm in gold so I can't complain about 1-1-1," that's wrong. Please view my previous posts on this matter (one of them is on page 1). I find a lot of holes in your logic. You can't complain about the 1-1-1 in gold league because nobody at that skill level will ever do it right. How can you ever balance a game where lower level players can not execute builds correctly, have almost no micro and constantly float minerals? If a gold league Terran decides to 1-1-1 a Protoss, I am pretty sure the push will not come on time, nor will they have the number of units that they should've had. If the Protoss loses to that push, it is not because it's imbalance, because that push was NOT the 1-1-1. The Protoss would've stopped that push easily if he was any better. Yea, if he was much better than the T, such that the P player played properly and the T botches a 1-1-1. That doesn't sound balanced to me. Balance can affect lower leagues. It just doesn't consistently affect them. But it's possible to lose to an imbalance.
No. If Terran messes up the 1-1-1, it's not the 1-1-1 anymore meaning it's not an imbalanced build. That means the Protoss can beat it consistently therefore it is not imbalanced. It doesn't make sense to me what you're saying. Nobody would ever blame imbalance over a botched 1-1-1 even if he won.
By your logic, 6 pools would be imbalanced because nobody knows how to stop them in bronze league. Banelings vs Terran would be imbalanced for everybody lower than Grandmasters. Dark Templar openers would be overpowered and will insta-win vs anyone in lower leagues.
Some things can't be balanced in the lower leagues. When lower league players completely mess up a build order, expand at 15 mins or make 20 workers throughout the entire game, the game simply can not be balanced. Not to mention a lot of lower league people just don't understand the game enough to understand what they're supposed to be doing or what to build.
|
On September 23 2011 08:38 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 07:23 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 23 2011 07:20 Umpteen wrote:
There was a very long and well-presented thread some time ago detailing the effects imbalance would have on the ladder. I can't find it, unfortunately, but here's the short version:
Take imaginary races A, B and C, and imagine we also have some magical way of knowing in advance exactly how 'skilled' all the players are so that when we place them in the ladder they are exactly where they should be (ie, where they should end up if the game were perfectly balanced). Then we let them play.
Now suppose A is inherently favoured versus B, all other matchups equal. From the start, As will win > 50% of their games, Bs will win < 50%, and Cs will win 50%. This pushes As up the ladder, and Bs down the ladder. This stabilises when the extra losses As have versus better Cs counteract the diminishing racial benefit As get facing MUCH better Bs, and the same in reverse for Bs.
At the point of stability, how does everyone feel?
If you're an average A, you win AvB more than 50% of the time. You might get the niggling feeling that you're not having to work as hard for those wins as your opponents are. You lose AvC more than 50% of the time, and you might get the feeling that you're being outplayed. If you blame imbalance, you'll think C is overpowered and B underpowered.
If you're an average B, you struggle against A, and might feel like they have an easier ride. You win BvC more than 50% of the time, and might feel like you're outplaying them. To the extent you blame imbalance, you'll think A is overpowered and C underpowered.
If you're an average C, you win more often against A's and lose more often against B's. How you feel about this is hard to say. You might feel like the extra wins and losses are justified, or you might think B is overpowered and A is weak.
In other words, everyone sees rock/paper/scissors, even though only one matchup is imbalanced.
Now suppose A is favoured against both B and C. From our initial 'perfect' situation, As will tend to rise and Bs and Cs fall, stabilising when A's inherent advantage is countered by the higher skill of the Bs and Cs he's facing.
At the point of stability, how does it feel?
Everyone wins 50% of the time. Bs and Cs might feel like they have to work harder than As, so Bs and Cs will whine a lot, while As point to their 50% win/loss ratios and say 'QQ more noobs'.
It's a similar situation if A is underpowered against B and C: everyone wins 50% of the time but As might feel like they have to work a bit harder. They'll whine a lot, and Bs and Cs will tell them to cut the QQ because the win/loss ratios are 50%.
You can also directly superimpose combinations. Say A is overpowered against B and C, but particularly so against B. What will everyone see? Paper/scissors/stone again.
Dealing with the extremes of the ladder
You might expect, if A were underpowered, that bronze leagues would be overstuffed with As. But there are good reasons why this might not manifest. Firstly, any imbalance sufficiently pronounced as to be detectable in Bronze could induce a relatively higher drop-out rate of A players, reducing the numbers in those leagues. Secondly, not all imbalances (or balances) manifest at every level of skill (eg marine splitting), softening the effect towards the bottom of the ladder.
The same reasoning applies if A is overpowered: we should not expect to see disproportionately fewer As in Bronze (more Bs and Cs might quit, and not all imbalances can manifest).
However, we should see the effects at the higher end of play. Yes, the reduction in sample size does make the 'Flash Effect' a problem for analysis at the very top level, but there ought to be a sweet spot around the GM/Master level where the numbers involved are still high enough to be significant, but where any anomalous 'buoyancy' can still be detected.
The Upshot
The existence of single-matchup imbalances can be detected statistically (via paper/scissors/stone win/loss ratios) throughout the leagues, although pinpointing which matchup is imbalanced can be tricky (the order of paper/scissors/stone narrows it down to one of three). The existence of an OP or UP race, however - I cannot see how that can be detected at low to mid levels of play, no matter what maths you apply, because it looks exactly the same as if the races were balanced: close to 50% win ratios all round.
It might sound daft, but very likely the only useful statistic for gauging balance below pro/gm/high masters is the amount of QQ coming from each race, because that exposes the sensations engendered by imbalance that are hidden by the matchmaking system.
Looking at the figures provided, it seems safest to assume that the 'truth' lies somewhere between the NA and Korean numbers - in other words, Zerg is a little too predictable and easy to blindside, Terran a little too safe, resilient and flexible (relatively speaking). PvZ domination could well be an artifact of transient PvT weakness pushing good Protosses way down, so that they do better against Zergs, but it's hard to know when Blizzard have already eliminated some factors.
In other words, no huge surprises. Even if the truth was somewhere between the Korean and NA results as you're suggesting. That still leaves it MOSTLY within the 5% ratio that Blizzard defines as acceptably balanced. No matter how you slice it, according to these stats the game is more balanced than the forum QQ would have you think. The usage of statistics for this purpose is still flawed. You can't view balance in SC2 solely through quantitative results from the ladder. I would argue almost all of their obtained results should be viewed as irrelevant. The game should be balanced at the highest level possible, and the number of players at the highest level is extremely, extremely small. I don't mean all of Code S, I mean smaller than that. On top of that, the ladder results are clouded by a relatively poor map pool that doesn't reflect competitive play, and simply the nature of playing a 1v1 ladder game is completely different than playing a 1v1 in competition. If a strategy is truly broken on Taldarim Altar TvZ, you're going to see it applied in competitive play first and most of the results on ladder won't reflect that the strategy is broken. Even among results for the MVP's and Nestea's, they way they operate on ladder is completely different because you have a random map selection, unknown opponent and unknown opponent race. Much of what they do is improvised to a certain extent, whereas in the GSL finals everything is mapped out through the early portions of the game. Not to mention these "stats" are a world of difference away from the type of useful quantitative measuring you would find in any sort of research, or even in other sports' statistical tracking such as Sabremetrics. There is always context to the numbers, and in this case they present none. I can only hope they're not relying on them too heavily.
Well you're touching on exactly the problem.
First off, the absolute top level is so incredibly small that it's almost impossible to use any sort of quantitative data to balance it. How then DO you balance it? Qualitatively? That's open to an incredible amount of bias.
Second, if you're balancing around something other than quantitative data, you have to approach map balance in a very different way. Do you nerf a race just because of an abuse of a single map mechanic or do you adjust the map? This is the exact sort of way that Gom tries to balance its own tournament internally, which is what tournaments SHOULD do, but Blizzard's job isn't just to balance the game for tournament play but for as everyone as much as possible.
Using quantitative data and methods makes the most sense. I don't really see how else you can do it.
|
It look like they want to balance the game for all leages. Thats so wrong it needs to be balanced around the highest level.
|
On September 23 2011 15:32 K3Nyy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 15:08 Brotocol wrote:On September 23 2011 14:54 K3Nyy wrote:On September 23 2011 14:09 Brotocol wrote:On September 23 2011 10:18 NicolBolas wrote:On September 23 2011 09:38 Channel Pressure wrote:On September 23 2011 02:24 Brotocol wrote:On September 23 2011 02:21 Soma.bokforlag wrote:
matchmaking doesnt mean that a platinum terran gets matched against diamond zerg and toss and gold terran.
if terran is OP this would show even in stats from lower leagues
this is of course in the case that balance works the same across leagues, which it doesnt. it is extremely hard for blizzard to balance the game on all levels. what do you do if its balanced for masters and lower? patch the game just for GM and e-sports? Misconception. What it really means to "balance for the highest level of play" is that the strongest play must be balanced, but this should automatically scale down to all levels because skill levels are relative. If it's balanced for players that have skill levels of 150, then it should automatically ensure balance for skill level 5. Im glad somebody said this! I dont know where people get this false notion that balancing the game "at the highest level of play" (I don't even know what that means) is bad for everyone else. If the game is balanced at the highest level, it will logically be balanced at every level. Your skill/lack of skill is non-sequitur. This has been demonstrated in every competative game that has been patched, particularly broken "tiers" in fighting games. Actually no, that does not logically follow. Let us assume that "skill" is a quantity that can be objectively measured. Now, let us say you have a game that is perfectly balanced if both players have 100 skill. This means that, in games that 100 skill players play, they will each win ~50% of the time. Let's suppose that one of the races in the game has a strategy that requires 50 skill to execute. The other races can defend the strategy, but defending it requires 75 skill. If you don't yave 75 skill, you will lose to the strategy ~70% of the time. Now, the game is still perfectly balanced at the 100 skill level, because the defending player has enough skill to defend the strategy successfully. But at the 60 skill level, if you put two 60 skill players together, the one who has access to the 50-skill strat will consistently beat any player up to 75 skill. You might say that this is an artificial problem. But it isn't; this is reality, and it always has been for StarCraft. Rushes are that kind of strategy. Defending rushes is always harder than executing them. Defending rushes requires more skill than executing them. Early game timing attacks are the same way: defending requires more work. You have to scout. You have to know that the strategy exists. You have to see signs of the strategy, so you have to know what to scout for. And then you have to execute a defense of it. For 100 skill players, that's easy. For 60 skill players, it's beyond their current abilities. Therefore, they will consistently lose to 50 skill players. This is why rushes in lower leagues are common: because they are the most effective way to win when you don't have much skill. So no, balance for high level play does not "automatically scale down to all levels". I already addressed this. Everyone is dwelling on the expression "scales down." The entire point was that lower skill levels can be affected by balance/ So, when someone says "I'm only in diamond, bro, so balance doesn't affect me," that's wrong. It just affects you less consistently, so Blizzard should not take it as a reference for balance (they should use the highest level available). However, if you lose to 1-1-1 in gold, you can't say "I'm in gold so I can't complain about 1-1-1," that's wrong. Please view my previous posts on this matter (one of them is on page 1). I find a lot of holes in your logic. You can't complain about the 1-1-1 in gold league because nobody at that skill level will ever do it right. How can you ever balance a game where lower level players can not execute builds correctly, have almost no micro and constantly float minerals? If a gold league Terran decides to 1-1-1 a Protoss, I am pretty sure the push will not come on time, nor will they have the number of units that they should've had. If the Protoss loses to that push, it is not because it's imbalance, because that push was NOT the 1-1-1. The Protoss would've stopped that push easily if he was any better. Yea, if he was much better than the T, such that the P player played properly and the T botches a 1-1-1. That doesn't sound balanced to me. Balance can affect lower leagues. It just doesn't consistently affect them. But it's possible to lose to an imbalance. No. If Terran messes up the 1-1-1, it's not the 1-1-1 anymore meaning it's not an imbalanced build. That means the Protoss can beat it consistently therefore it is not imbalanced. It doesn't make sense to me what you're saying. Nobody would ever blame imbalance over a botched 1-1-1 even if he won. By your logic, 6 pools would be imbalanced because nobody knows how to stop them in bronze league. Banelings vs Terran would be imbalanced for everybody lower than Grandmasters. Dark Templar openers would be overpowered and will insta-win vs anyone in lower leagues. Some things can't be balanced in the lower leagues. When lower league players completely mess up a build order, expand at 15 mins or make 20 workers throughout the entire game, the game simply can not be balanced. Not to mention a lot of lower league people just don't understand the game enough to understand what they're supposed to be doing or what to build.
I didn't say that things should be balanced for the lower leagues. I've said several times that it should be balanced for higher leagues. Please go back and read my detailed explanations.
I simply hold that balance can affect lower leagues. It's not consistent, because people mess up more; there's obviously degradation in skill and much more inconsistency.
Nobody is saying that Blizzard should consider lower leagues for balance. However, balance is a problem that can be felt at any level. Even 1 unfair situation, however much rarer it may be at lower leagues, should not happen imho.
|
Wait, since almost nobody changes race, won't the MMR system mean that it will go to 50:50 (approx) even if the game is terribly imba? ie if race A is OP, all the people who main race A will go to masters and only the really good people at race B will remain in high leagues (and they are good so they get 50:50?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
