Blizzard Blog: Balance Snapshot - Page 26

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.